[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29796-30305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5355]



MTC-00032329

From: John Hatch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/14/01 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Hatch
3105 Sea View Court
Las Vegas, NV 89117
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Hatch



MTC-00032330

From: Cleburne Medlock
To: DOJvsMS
Date: 12/14/01 12:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sirs:
    First, allow me to introduce myself briefly. I, C. W. Medlock, 
have worked in the ``Software'' field in a professional 
capacity for more than 47 years. (My first course in 
``programming'' was taken in 1950 at Purdue University.) I 
have worked at such stalwarts of this industry as IBM 
(1960-1966), NCR (1975-1977), etc. At IBM, I was one of 
the six Architects of IBM's Operating System 360 (``OS/
360''), one of the world's first true Operating Systems 
(1963-64). Also at IBM (1963), I was one of the six members of 
the joint IBM/SHARE (a users group) team that developed the advanced 
Programming Language One (PL/I) Although the latter language has 
fallen into disuse due to more modern advances in such 
``standard'', non?-proprietary languages a COBOL, PL/I 
indeed was a most powerful language (for both scientific and 
business computing) that I believe set the stage for the more modern 
versions of COBOL and other more modern scientific computing 
languages.
    I, from 1982 to 1999, was proprietor of my own software 
``home-business'' Pro/Am Software, where I developed and 
marketed worldwide several software ``tools'' for use by 
the programmer. It was here, as a ``lone survivor'' of a 
great group of Information Age professionals, that I first 
encountered the threats laid down by Microsoft's failure to disclose 
much-needed facts that would allow entrepreneurs such as myself to 
develop tools that would directly or indirectly interface with their 
``Windows'' Operating System. (This does NOT mean that I 
necessarily would have required the source code of Windows, but only 
a FULL disclosure of Microsoft's file formats, OS interfaces, 
details of invoking OS functions, etc. This should include such 
disclosure of these interfaces for all of Microsoft's other products 
which interface with Windows, as competitors and other users have a 
need for this information just as well.) A case might easily be made 
by Microsoft that they should have the full protection of their 
intellectual property such as source code, where distribution of 
same would allow many other (foreign?) businesses to easily make 
copies of same, and, via suitable modifications, each apply their 
own ``Trademarks'', ``Copyright'' notifications, 
etc. However, I cannot imagine a case in any court where it could be 
argued that it would be harmful to a legitimate, non-monopolistic 
business for them to disclose FULLY the interfaces needed by ALL 
users (developers and ordinary users alike) to fully use and expand 
all features of Windows and all of it's associated Microsoft 
Products! (I can quote more than a few examples of where I and other 
developers were not able to obtain needed information about files 
and other data formats that were needed to allow us to develop 
products which would enlarge the capabilities of the Windows 
operating system, thereby seemingly even strengthening its place in 
the market.) Such a relatively ``open architecture'' has 
indeed been the norm with such stalwart operating-system providers 
as IBM, etc. (After all, the original IBM Personal Computer had even 
it's Hardware and Software totally in the public domain. Microsoft 
should at the very least provide the ``circuit diagram'' 
of their software, so that it could even be repaired more easily, 
including making expansions and improvements thereto!)
    The provisions in any Settlement with Microsoft should NOT be 
limited to the interfaces with their Windows operating system, but 
should indeed include ALL interfaces (direct or indirect) with ANY 
Microsoft product. This is much needed by developers and many 
consumers, as well!
    I would like to help put Microsoft in its proper place in the 
Software World, and see that the DOJ indeed does not ``sell 
out'' to MS!
    Most sincerely,
    C.W.. Medlock



MTC-00032331

From: Jody Ausley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/14/01 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jody Ausley
PO Box 780282
San Antonio, tx 78278
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers

[[Page 29797]]

and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to 
continue to innovate and provide new software and products. Software 
developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jody Ausley



MTC-00032332

From: Nancy Emmert
To: DOJ
Date: 12/14/01 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    There are only two things more disgusting than the proposed 
settlement between DOJ and Microsoft: one is the settlement proposed 
by the states not party to it and the other is that the suit was 
brought in the first place.
    The very idea that the United States government should have been 
party to an attempt to deprive ANY party of rights to its'' own 
intellectual property is disgraceful, disgusting and every other 
kind of ``dis-'' imaginable.
    The only truly just judgment in this case is an order to have 
members of what they're now calling the ``Liberty 
Alliance'' strung up by their collective cajones., but that's 
probably not an available option.
    Therefore, I respectfully ask for an end this economic roadblock 
and urge acceptance of the agreement submitted jointly by DOJ and 
Microsoft. The dissenting states and the economic terrorists ought 
to be told to take a hike.
    Nancy Emmert ...
    200 Roselawn ...
    Coleman, Texas 76834-7012



MTC-00032333

From: Alden Ringer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/14/01 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This message will be followed by a letter of the same content.
    Alden C. Ringer
    77 Brown Rd
    Ctr. Tuftonbors NH 03816



MTC-00032334

From: Henry and Mrs. Arlene Carle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/17/01 2:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry and Mrs. Arlene Carle
6600 Downey Finch Lane
Anchorage, AK 99516-2413
December 17, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Henry and Arlene Carle



MTC-00032335

From: Mark Miedlar
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/19/01 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Miedlar
122 E. Cottage Ave
W. Carrollton, OH 45449
December 19, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able

[[Page 29798]]

to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Miedlar



MTC-00032336

From: Philip Capps
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/20/01 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Capps
4507 Ave B
Austin, TX 78751
December 20, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Philip Capps



MTC-00032337

From: Keith Gallup
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Gallup
1707 Brandenbery Dr.
Surfside Beach, SC 29575-5478
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Gallup



MTC-00032338

From: Charles Loeffler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Loeffler
7201 Wills Way
Hamilton, Oh 45011
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 29799]]

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E Loeffler



MTC-00032340

From: Tom Remshak
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Remshak
3250 n 87 st.
Milwaukee, WI 53222
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Remshak



MTC-00032341

From: Adam Wiederholt
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/21/01 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adam Wiederholt
18228 Sunset Ln
Omaha, NE 68135
December 21, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. 
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up computer 
manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for

[[Page 29800]]

the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Adam R. Weiderholt



MTC-00032342

From: Perry Staley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/22/01 5:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perry Staley
411 Orchard Street
Ironton, OH 45638-1166
December 22, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Perry L. Staley



MTC-00032343

From: Mury
To: 
[email protected]@inetgw,[email protected]@inetgw...
Date: 12/22/01 3:44pm
Subject: Anti-competitive practices and Lies--Qwest and 
Microsoft
    Dear Qwest, MN PUC, FCC, USDOJ, FTC, and MN AGO:
    I am sitting here on December 22, 2001 steaming mad at Qwest and 
MSN (Microsoft). I should be out Christmas shopping, but I'm hardly 
in the holiday spirit. It seems as though by partnering with MSN 
Qwest thinks they have found a nice little loophole to circumvent 
all the trouble they have found themselves in in the past by using 
anti-competitive tactics in house.
    As the MN PUC should recall they had to impose penalties against 
Qwest a couple years back for anti-competitive marketing, product 
pricing, treating their own Megacentral product differently than 
they treated other ISP's Megacentral product, and for lying to 
consumers. The PUC at that time penalized Qwest. A safeharbor number 
was set up for consumers to call run by a third party. Qwest had to 
provide free modems to ISPs and provide some coop marketing dollars 
to help correct the harm done. This hardly compensated us for our 
loses, but at least it brought Qwest, then US West, back in line.
    Now they are up to the same antics, but they are getting around 
the system by partnering with MSN. Qwest's web site is very 
misleading and their phone reps flat out lie about pricing and 
promotions.
    (1) On their web site
    http://www.qwest.com/residential/products/dsl/index.html:
    Qwest starts out by favoring MSN with phrases such as, 
``Get MSN Internet Access or select from hundreds of ISP 
partners nationwide.'' Qwest makes it sound like customers will 
only get free activation and a free modem if they choose MSN.
    ``Special DSL Offers--Purchase MSN Broadband Powered 
by Qwest 256 or Deluxe and get FREE activation, FREE use of a DSL 
modem, and 30 days of FREE service. CustomChoice customers will 
receive 60 days of FREE service!*''
    Markets a package that includes both MSN and Qwest:
    ``MSN Broadband Powered by Qwest 256 256K/Up to 256K Use 
for fast web surfing, e-mail and downloading moderate-size files. 
$39.95 (Includes MSN Internet Access) Order Now ``MSN logo 
included
    And
    ``MSN Broadband Powered by Qwest Deluxe Up to 640K/Up to 
256K Use for online gaming, e-mailing large attachments or 
downloading large files. $49.95 (Includes MSN Internet Access) Order 
Now ``MSN logo included We have asked for similar treatment and 
have been denied.
    (2) When customers call in they are lied to frequently. I have 
enclosed a letter from a existing customer that was moving from one 
location to another who was told he would only get the promos if he 
chose MSN. He didn't want MSN so he is switching to cable. I have 
heard many other similar stories and there are probably countless 
cases we don't hear about.
    (3) If a customer wishes to switch from MSN to us they process 
is different. Because the system is somehow tied into MSN's the 
customer first must cancel the service with MSN before they can even 
order it with us.
    (4) The practice of delaying the install of MegaCentral lines 
for ISPs is still poorly managed at best and maliciously hampered at 
worst. We ordered a MegaCentral line for St. Cloud, Minnesota. On 
May 24th, 2001 we received an install due date of June 8th, 2001.
    Order Number N91370107
    Due Date 6-8-01
    Circuit ID 14/HCGJ/95372//ACSO
    The circuit was finally installed around October 20th, 2001. 
That's 4.5 months *overdue*. It is very important to note that this 
install was in a building that has a common wall with the Qwest CO 
and there was plenty of fiber running into the building. We selected 
this site so there wouldn't be problems like this and we are paying 
a premium in rent for the privledge.
    We lost thousands of dollars and lost opportunity because of 
this. I believe these issues should be looked into by each of you. 
When we selected Qwest MegaCentral DSL as a product offering to base 
our services on we were promised we would be treated fairly. This 
has hardly been the case. I know Qwest thinks that because it's MSN 
and out of house they can get away with it, but if they are being 
compensated in the least out of the partnership they are certainly 
violating the

[[Page 29801]]

spirit of the MegaCentral contracts with other ISPs and any 
applicable tariffs.
    As a special note to the US Department of Justice here is yet 
another example of Microsoft entering into preferred relationships 
that snub other competitors in the marketplace.
    If any of you see this in my light and find Qwest is at fault, 
please apply a quick and effective punishment and provide for *real* 
compensation to be paid those of us who have been harmed.
    Regards,
    Mury Johnson
    CEO
    GoldenGate Internet Services
    763-784-2800
    Dear Golden Gate,
    I just moved to a new address: 7124 W 113th St, Bloomington MN 
55438 phone 952-941-0399. I was planning to transfer my 
DSL service to the new location. However, Qwest wanted to charge me 
an installation fee ($66 or $99) if I didn't use MSN, and the 
service would take up to 2 weeks to get running. On the other hand, 
RoadRunner (cable modem) would give me free installation and come 
out on the day we moved in. Their bit rate is faster and it costs $5 
less per month than DSL. So I decided to try RoadRunner. I 
appreciate the great service I received from Golden Gate, but I am 
sorry that I will not be needing it anymore. Could you please cancel 
my internet service? Thank you.
    John C. Harkness (hark11)
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,ASKDOJ,[email protected]@...



MTC-00032344

From: james m nordlund
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/23/01 5:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james m nordlund
p.o.b. 982
Lakin, KS 67860-0982
December 23, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James M Nordlund



MTC-00032345

From: Kevin Langdon
To: U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division
Date: 12/23/01 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To those in charge of the Microsoft settlement negotiations: I 
believe that nothing that has been done to date--specifically 
including the abandoned plan to separate Microsoft's operating 
system business from its applications business--has gone to the 
root of the problem, which is the existence of Microsoft's monopoly 
of the operating system business. This is not just market dominance 
but a situation in which meaningful competition for non-niche-market 
operating system business is effectively impossible.
    Given the widely-reported chaos in the negotiations to date, it 
may be time to introduce a new solution.
    There is a remedy that would be highly effective. It would make 
room for competitors in the operating system market while also 
leaving Microsoft viable competitive strategies. What I propose is 
simply that DOS and Windows (through 98), including all source code, 
be placed into the public domain. Microsoft would be free to develop 
its Windows 2000 and XP lines, but other companies would be free to 
introduce competing developments from the common base of Windows98.
    Please give this idea serious consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Langdon



MTC-00032346

From: Stephen Teebagy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/26/01 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Teebagy
99 Garrett Place
Plymouth, MA 02360
December 26, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsofts 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsofts headquarters for the next five years, at 
the companys expense, and monitor

[[Page 29802]]

Microsofts behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Teebagy



MTC-00032347

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]
Date: 12/26/01 2:27pm
Subject: Commentary on Microsoft settlement
    I believe that the DOJ settlement is the best offer on the table 
for the United States as a whole.
    Apparently the ``other'' states want to destroy 
Microsoft. Don't let this happen.
    Despite the personal interest of the people at Oracle, Sun, et. 
al., Microsoft has propelled the microcomputer industry foreword to 
a standard.
    This benefits everyone (including people that don't own 
computers). I have been a professional programmer since 1989, and 
while I still prefer the Mac OS, I believe that especially with the 
current economy we need to SETTLE THIS CASE BASED ON THE DOJ 
RECOMMENDATION now.
    Thanks,
    -Chris C.
    P.S.
    Please tell Larry Ellison to shut up, and tell Sun to submit 
Java to a standards committee. (tell, not order)



MTC-00032348

From: Timothy Ray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/27/01 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Ray
616 S. Sheridan
Fergus Falls, MN 56537-3018
December 27, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy Ray



MTC-00032349

From: Jerry Jorgensen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 3:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Jorgensen
2505 Las Brisas Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.

[[Page 29803]]

    Sincerely,
    Jerry Jorgensen



MTC-00032350

From: Douglas Warren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 4:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Douglas Warren
2 Flintstone Drive
Marlton, NJ 08053-2111
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Douglas A. Warren



MTC-00032351

From: Jan Hall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/28/01 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jan Hall
7984 Via Villagio
W. Palm Beach, FL 33412
December 28, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jan Hall



MTC-00032352

From: Mark Buell
To: ``[email protected]''
Date: 12/28/01 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust suit
    Dear Sir or Madam;
    I strenously object to the current talk of settlement with 
Microsoft. They have consistently demonstrated that they are 
incorrigibly anti-competitive, and have consistently failed to honor 
the spirit, if not the letter, of previous settlements. I see 
nothing in the current settlement offered that shows me anything 
other than a continuation of the current monopoly situation.
    Since I am also completely convinced that having the market 
completely change the operating ground rules every two years is not 
good for consumers, I am raising my voice to object to the DOJ-
Microsoft settlement.
    Regards;
    Mark Buell
    3814 Emerson Ave.
    Memphis, TN 38128
    [email protected]
    CC:``[email protected]''



MTC-00032353

From: L.D. Best
To: Renata B. Hesse
Date: 12/29/01 1:01pm
Subject: Suggestion
    I learned long ago that I cannot know everything. I know a bit 
about how the ``law'' works because I've been forced to 
deal with it on my own, without an attorney. I know quite a bit 
about how computers work, because both my budget and my interests 
have had me building my own stuff. I also know quite a bit about how 
software works, and how/why some software doesn't work, because I've 
had a personal computer for twenty (20) years now. Much of the best 
software I have--or had--is no longer of much worth to me, 
because the companies who sold and supported it were either run out 
of business by Microsoft, or bought out so the software could be 
``incorporated'' into

[[Page 29804]]

a Windows bundle ... thus making it unworkable. And being forced to 
move to Windows means that I've had to move from a `286 
machine to a Pentium 4 1.4GHz machine ... a big jump that leaves the 
majority of the worlds'' population unable to make it.
    My suggestion is that when it comes to software and computer 
systems and fairness of any settlement, lawyers do NOT know enough 
to make the decisions. There are still a few software companies 
around who might be able to give attorneys a better view of what 
software should and shouldn't do, what system integration should and 
should not be, what exclusionary practices should be considered as 
ongoing monopolistic activities. And there are, of course, 
``the open source people''--not exclusively 
Linux--who could explain more clearly the dangers of continuing 
to allow Microsoft to determine what its punishment should be.
    Microsoft's business practices, and the current 
``settlement'' as proposed, are horribly dangerous... and 
that is NOT a flagrant exageration. They released Windows 2000 while 
publicly admitting there were at least 1,000,000 bugs they didn't 
want to bother to fix; they released WindowsME with a blare of 
trumpets, and within weeks were telling any and sundry to NOT 
upgrade to ME because of too many problems; they released WindowsXP 
with a promise of the best security and safety of any release to 
date--and now are having to face the fact that it offers what 
is possibly the worse system security breech ever found in any 
software ever used! But that is not the only danger. Because of the 
way Microsoft has done, and continues to do, business with 
advertising and hype to grab the public and scores of lawyers to 
assist in the ``legal'' theft of the intellectual 
properties of others, scores of good companies doing good work 
producting excellent software have been driven out of business, and 
tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs in the last ten 
years ... all directly as a result of Microsoft. To allow Microsoft 
to continue to exert so much influence, to effective encourage 
Microsoft to continue doing what they have always done, is going to 
negatively impact an economy which is stil so badly shaken up that 
no one with ethics would even attempt to forecast what will happen 
in the next year.
    And DOJ has to realize that Microsoft can never be judged by 
``a jury of peers'' because no other commercial enterprise 
in the history of the world ever managed to get such a stranglehold 
on the economy of multiple nations; the railroad monopolies, the 
steel monopolies, the ``good ol'' boy clubs'' of the 
last two centuries are all child's play compared to Microsoft. And 
the ``power of the dollar'' that Bill Gates himself wields 
is without equal, or even reference points ...
    If the proposed settlement is not scrapped, and the original 
remedies ordered not implemented, DOJ is effectively placing the 
security and the economy of our country into the hands of Microsoft.
    Not only is that bad business, it's un-Constitutional IMNSHO.
    Most sincerely,
    l.d.
    L.D. Best
    Concerned Citizen
    Computer Geek
    Disabled Veteran
    Mother of Three Ethical Children [maybe 2.5?]
    Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/



MTC-00032354

From: betty mayes-petty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/30/01 4:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
betty mayes-petty
route 1 box 231
cunningham, ky 42035
December 30, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Betty S. Mayes-Petty



MTC-00032355

From: JAMES CROSSLIN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 12/30/01 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JAMES CROSSLIN
15523 Chickamauga Ave.
Baton Rouge, LA 70817
December 30, 2001
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot

[[Page 29805]]

retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    JAMES E. CROSSLIN



MTC-00032356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/30/01 8:12pm
Subject: my 2 cents worth
    This settlement is a joke. It allows Microsoft to tie up in 
litigation new battles until the founder grows old and dies. With 
this settlement, Microsoft will continue their deceitful practices. 
Any deviation will take months or even years to settle in a court of 
law.
    Example:
    Microsoft puts out information for developers that allow them to 
use part of the Windows Operating system to develop a product. This 
is a normal part of any OS development business. Here is what will 
happen, Microsoft will later change the OS which prevents the 
developers product from working--while conveniently, however; 
the new and upgraded OS has a microsoft version of the developers 
middle ware that works just fine.
    This is another way to stamp out competition. If anyone thinks 
that settlement is fair, it is not. This method of working can only 
be compared to a drug dealer. The first few are free, suddenly your 
addicted and its a must have in order to operate.
    We have grown dependent on software as a means to operate in our 
everyday lives.
    Microsoft will only tie everything up in court for ever. Here's 
a good ``pin prick'' for Microsoft.
    Require Microsoft to buy for low income schools competing 
software of the Schools choice--the choice can NOT be any 
Microsoft product.
    Have it be equivalent to the amount of money damage caused thus 
far.
    How about a billion dollars. No sweat to Microsoft.
    Use ANY competing companies--Apple, IBM, SUN, Linux. etc.
    PS--Don't let Microsoft gain any money by investing in the 
companies that it is competing with.
    Good Luck!
    I'm glad your prosecuting and I hope the US wins.
    Ben



MTC-00032357

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This suit was ill advised from the start. Settle NOW!
    Don Page
    Dragoon, AZ



MTC-00032358

From: Don Stults
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion, the litigation against Microsoft should cease. I 
have a difficult time understanding why the case was litigated. 
There seems to be a ``punish the proficient'' attitude in 
this case. Microsoft has invested a lot of money to develop products 
CONSUMERS WANT and they have accepted ALL the market risks (sales, 
worldwide copyright infringement, and yes, competition).
    Let Microsoft get on with their business (which they do 
well)...the continuing litigation expenses will NOT be paid by 
Microsoft, it will be paid by consumers of their products. Don 
Stults [email protected]



MTC-00032359

From: Bob Levittan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle it NOW!!!!! Don't let this travesty continue. From the 
very beginning, this whole thing has been about Sun, Netscape, AOL 
et al, using litigation as a means to compete. END IT NOW! STOP 
WASTING MY MONEY! SPEND MORE TIME TRYING TO MAKE OUR LIVES SAFER. 
STOP WASTING TIME AND MANPOWER!
    END IT NOW!
    Bob Levittan
    50 Cliftwood Drive
    Huntington, NY 11743



MTC-00032360

From: Donald Hetrick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please record my support to finally settle the endless 
litigation against Microsoft. I find the current settlement harsh, 
but feel its fine if it can finally be concluded so our country can 
move on.
    Thank You,
    Donald J. Hetrick



MTC-00032361

From: tobeyd
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello,
    I've been working as a software developer since 1964.
    In my opinion, Microsoft has attained their current position is 
because---
    (1) They listen to the requests of Computer Users.
    (2) They develop quality solutions based on Users requests.
    (3) They provide an integrated platform for Independent and 
Corporate Developers to provide effective solutions for their 
clients.
    Imagination and Innovation are the keys.
    Thanks,
    David Drake



MTC-00032362

From: Kaveh Mofidi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00032363

From: Rick Weyenberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle now!



MTC-00032364

From: Miriam A. Detert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:32pm
Subject: Microsoft
    This entire case is the most unjust case your so called Justice 
Department has ever taken . You are prosecuting an innocent man and 
company. They have done more for this country than anyone in many, 
many years.
    Miriam A. Detert



MTC-00032365

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/31/01 11:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Setlement
    The Microsoft settlement is harsh, and more than enough penalty 
for Microsoft. Prolonging this only benefits a few special 
interests, for their own greed. AOL is prime for a monopoly 
investigation, and is campaigning for more against Microsoft to 
benefit their own interests. The few states protesting were only 
being more greedy than the rest, looking for a free ride on someone 
esle's money. No one is forced to buy Microsoft or use IE, but do 
because it is a better product.
    Leave them alone.
    Jan Roberts



MTC-00032366

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: usdoj
Date: 1/1/02 8:15am
    Morning,
    I am not a big fan of Microsoft. But I will say this take 
Mircosoft and close it down (split it up)how many thousands of 
people who work for Microsoft lose their job. How many on the 
outside of Microsoft will lose their job.
    The affects of September 11 are felt world wide. People can no 
longer work because of the changes made to every industry and 
business. Now we want in the name of

[[Page 29806]]

fairness to break up mircosoft. Why because the competition hasn't 
got the courage to go out and face Mircosoft without the governments 
help.
    When it comes to law I don't expect much. It seems who ever has 
the smarts to make money and be forward thinking will always be open 
to attach by the greedy and the supposed do gooders (governement and 
lawyers) of this world.
    Only in America a country of which I am proud to be a part can 
the minority change the way of life for the majority. Only in 
America can one person change a system that can affect thousands 
even if the thousands don't what the change.
    I hear reference to the constitution all the time. But has 
anyone lately ever truly read it. I don't think so. Every time 
someone doesn't like something they point to the constituation and 
say my rights are not being given to me.
    As I said at the beginning I am not a fan of Microsoft. Do I use 
their products? Yes some and others no. Thats because as an 
individual I have choices and if I choose not to use something I can 
turn it off or not buy it.
    Yet the courts and the government in their do good way wish to 
take choices away from the people and pass laws that say we must use 
this product or that product.
    Freedom of choice on my part I don't think so. Freedom of choice 
something the government and the courts have forgotten about. They 
now make the choices for us citizens and there in lies the basic 
causes of all our problems today.
    I know the courts and the government will disagree with me as 
they must to ensure that they have positions of power and control. 
Common sense which was onced used in this country on a daily basis 
has been replaced by greed, personal wishes and power of the few (in 
politics and law) over the many and is support by the government and 
the courts.
    There are more important thing to worry about in our country and 
the world today. Leave Microsoft alone and lets get this country 
back on its feet.
    Paul



MTC-00032367

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Bruce Gladstone
Date: 1/1/02 6:59pm
Subject: Re: Settlement
    Dear Bruce,
    Even the MS-only software donated to underprivileged schools? 
Some penalty! It's like requiring an over-agressive religion to 
distribute its catechisms to poor people.
    Now, if they required MS to distribute & support Linux or 
BSD or Corel or Netware, perhaps I would believe it was a 
``penalty'' and not government- sanctioned self-promotion.
    Tom
    On Tuesday, January 01, 2002 at 13:53, Bruce Gladstone
     wrote re 
``Settlement'' saying: I am thoroughly in agreement with 
the settlement reached by Microsoft and the Justice Department. I 
believe the continuing objections by the State's Attorneys General 
are politically motivated and are not designed to benefit consumers 
in the slightest. This is especially true of Atty. Gen Lockyear in 
my home state. It is no coincidence that both Sun and Oracle are 
California Corporations, both would much rather not compete with 
Microsoft based server applications and database software and both 
were significant contributors to Atty. General Lockyear.
    - Bruce
    Bruce Gladstone
    email: [email protected]
    3937 Sumac Dr.
    tel: (818) 986-2950
    Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
    fax: (818) 981-5922
    ------- Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    ----@Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633 
fax:231-6115
    ----bs--<,758 Albert 
St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
    (*)/'(*)ICQ:57647974 [email protected] N45.412 W75.714
    Laws are the spider's webs which,
    if anything small falls into them they ensnare it,
    but large things break through and escape.
    --Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
    I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the 
rights of the people by the gradual and silent encroachments of 
those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. -James 
Madison, fourth US president (1751-1836)
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@inet...



MTC-00032368

From: Dale E. Anderson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/2/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dale E. Anderson
814 West Third Avenue
Garnett, KS 66032-2002
January 2, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dale E. Anderson



MTC-00032370

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    I'm all for the present microsoft settlement, I don't think they 
were a monopoly, I think it was a liberal witch hunt.



MTC-00032371

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 11:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    When is enough, enough? I think it may very well be when I see 
more and more tax dollars go down the tube to persecute a business 
and with no perceptible gain to me or the general public. It seems 
to me that my dollars are being used to assist other major 
corporation executives line their pockets. I was under the 
impression that a satisfactory settlement had been reached. I guess 
also the attorneys must feel that there is more to be gained by the 
hours charged for continuing litigation. Let them go back to chasing

[[Page 29807]]

ambulances and let Microsoft's competitors go to marketing their own 
products for their profits.
    Donald S. Chakas
    610 W. Pacificview Drive
    Bellingham, WA.



MTC-00032372

From: w--engstrom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    Instead of being harassed by the U. S. Government, Microsoft 
should be considered as a National Treasure. Its exported products 
help our economy and expand our capabilities. I think that the court 
case against Microsoft was totally unfounded. Whatever concessions 
that Microsoft makes are more than adequate, and in my opinion 
should not even be necessary. While there are those people (mainly 
Microsoft's competitors) who want to suppress Microsoft, we believe 
that Microsoft provides great products and follows up with great 
support for those products.
    Microsoft's products are sometimes released with 
``bugs.'' However, Microsoft readily provides fixes via 
the Internet as soon as they realize there is a problem. Their 
customer support is outstanding. As an engineer, I recognize that 
few products that hit the marketplace can be perfect, and that it is 
impossible to foresee everything that can go wrong, no matter how 
well you plan. In spite of this, Microsoft does a great job and has 
provided significant support to the technology and economic health 
of the industry and our country.
    William Engstrom
    3110 181 Avenue NE
    Redmond, WA 98052-5934
    PS, I haven't seen Janet Reno or Joel Klein producing any 
software or anything else of value to the country lately. Thank God 
they are no longer with the Government. The main thing that can be 
said of Joel Klein is that he successfully used the Microsoft suit 
as a stepping stone to a better-paying job. But he left a wake of 
destruction behind him.



MTC-00032373

From: William B. Zollars
To: Dept. of Justice
Date: 1/2/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It seems to me that the settlement arrived at between the 
Justice Dept. and Microsoft is fair and should be put to rest. I am 
a Microsoft OS user and think their products are excellent. They 
should direct their efforts toward creating new software rather than 
having to spend so much money in legal fees defending charges by 
their competitors.
    William B. Zollars
    phone: (412)835-4741
    fax: (412)835-4781
    email: [email protected]



MTC-00032374

From: Larry Timmons
To: DOJ
Date: 1/2/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    As a professional engineer that conducts business around the 
world I can attest to the usefulness of the Microsoft family of 
products and the increase in productivity these standard products 
have allowed. Our business helps bring foreign revenue to the US. 
Our ability to communicate with foreign companies is dependent on 
using the same software.
    While you may consider some of the previous tactics that 
Microsoft has allegedly used anti-competitive, the net result has 
been establishing a standard with which the world of business can 
communicate. For those of us that remember computers of the 80's and 
early 90's when there were few standards.
    At that time I spent most of the time just getting various 
software packages to run consistently on the computer.
    This resulted in a substantial amount of wasted time. Today's 
programs enable us to conduct business without being computer 
wizards.
    I personally feel that the government has pushed this case well 
beyond its merits and strongly urge the DOJ to settle this matter as 
proposed and let us business people get on with life and let 
Microsoft continue to bring us new and useful products. Let the free 
market decide the future of Microsoft.
    L.M. Timmons, President
    Aircraft Engineering Specialists, Inc.
    425-641-6631



MTC-00032375

From: BillMeelater
To: DOJ
Date: 1/2/02 2:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement--Public Comment
    Dear DOJ,
    I think the settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ is fair and 
I believe it is in the best interest of consumers, the country and 
Microsoft to get on with the business of business and stop this 
seemingly endless litigation.
    Perhaps I am missing something, but as a computer software and 
hardware consumer for over 20 years, I still fail to see how I've 
been hurt by the Microsoft Corporation. I have never felt cheated 
by, or felt forced to buy just their products. They are 
competitively priced and function very well considering the nature 
of computers and software.
    I think it's safe to say that in this case, the governments 
actions against Microsoft have slowed a great company's progress 
towards further enabling consumers, businesses, government, etc. 
from becoming more productive and efficient. Ironically, the DOJ has 
done more to hurt people who own Microsoft stock than Microsoft will 
ever do to stockholders or consumers. While I agree that a big 
company such as Microsoft can intimidate other start ups and crush 
competition, one should realize that business, like nature itself, 
has a natural order and rhythm. At some point in time, Microsoft 
won't be the `big gorilla' on the block. In the 
meantime, by having almost a standard operating system for computers 
in general, we all benefit from increased productivity. Again, after 
the big phone company breakup, and the disappearance of a common 
long distance carrier, it was (and still is) tough to make long 
distance calls from phones you don't own. If you've dealt with 
computers for any length of time, the nightmare doubles in scope 
without standards in place.
    Forgive the rambling. Let's get back to work doing something 
constructive. The country's economy is not well, and we need to end 
what I consider somewhat of a--`witch hunt', 
brought on largely by a few jealous competitors. I repeat--as a 
consumer of operating systems, browsers, office suites, etc., I have 
never felt cheated by Microsoft's products.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Braun
    Colorado



MTC-00032377

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/2/02 4:48pm
Subject:
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:32:45 -0800
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 17:32:45 -0800
To: [email protected]
From: Anne Smidt 
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=``us-ascii''; 
format=flowed
    For heaven sakes--let's not prolong this litigation any 
longer. The Dept of Justice took a stand & let's abide by their 
rulings. Please consider the public's best interests and not make 
this a vendetta instigated by Microsoft's so-called competitors or 
``special interest'' groups. The public wants this over 
with. I WANT THIS LITIGATION TO END NOW.
    V. Anne Smidt



MTC-00032378

From: rtalarczyk
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/2/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft ....
    To whom it may concern,
    In my opinion punishing Microsoft can only stymie other hitech 
companies in America from doing innovative work in the future. 
America should be proud of what Microsoft has contributed to the 
world. Microsoft has greatly helped America become the leader in 
computer technology.
    Many other competitors are envious of this contribution both 
here and abroad. Lets not destroy in what we have created. Lets move 
forward , for the battle to be won will be, to keep America the 
Leader in advanced of technology.
    Thank you,
    Robert Talarczyk



MTC-00032379

From: Vi Ann B. Clough
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/3/02 5:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think it s time to just settle this dispute and not have any 
more litigation. Microsoft got where it is by working at it and 
should NOT be stiffled because someone else wants a piece of the 
cake.
    Thank you,
    Mrs. Ralph D. Clough
    [email protected]

[[Page 29808]]



MTC-00032380

From: bill boone
To: Dept. of Justice
Date: 1/3/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Attorney General of the United States of America
    When the Microsoft case is finally settled, the economy will get 
back on track. Confidence will be restored to small and large 
investor alike.
    Microsoft will be able to get back full time to do what they do 
best, being the leader in inovation in making our lives better, at a 
reasonable price.
    Stop the never ending litigation, and settle.
    Sincerely,
    Josephine M. Boone (Mrs.)
    903 Mc Donald Road
    Cle Elum, Washington 98922-8933
    509-674-2975--phone
    509-674- 5947--fax
    [email protected] -e-mail
    CC:Dept. of Justice



MTC-00032382

From: Bill Pickering
To: Dept of Justice
Date: 1/4/02 9:03am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft settlement
    AMERICA MUST FACE THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE AND RESPOND CORRECTLY The 
proposed terms of antitrust settlement with Microsoft to distribute 
free operating software to education markets is totally unacceptable 
and should NOT be passed by individual states not the Justice Dept. 
The proposed action is really not a penalty--it is a benefit to 
Microsoft.
    1. Anyone with an abacus can figure out it doesn't cost 
$1billion to press, distribute CDs to schools. This is only a slap 
on the wrist, and certainly no where close to global community 
service! It's ineffective action against a known monopoly and poses 
no penalty for Microsoft's illegal gains.
    2. Sending free Microsoft Windows CDs to schools is only forcing 
educational markets to accept the Windows operating system--a 
contrived ploy to further perpetuate the very Microsoft monopoly the 
Justice Department is trying so diligently to eliminate! Schools who 
use other computing platforms receive no benefit from this proposed 
action. The proposed settlement is pure nonsense, designed to 
benefit no one except Microsoft.
    Please do not accept this ridiculous settlement proposal. It 
would be devastating to our economy in the long run, and it 
demoralizes America's trust in our justice system.
    Hundreds of thousands of parents, teachers and students across 
our nation have already reviewed and rejected this proposal. These 
folks are now asking and watching to see if individual states and 
the Justice Department are also wise enough to see the deception 
behind this proposal and refuse it's acceptance.
    Microsoft continues its takeover of existing software companies 
at an alarming rate. Several more companies have become 
``Microsoft property'' in past several months (incl. Great 
Plains Accounting). Microsoft apparently fails all reasonable 
efforts to deploy required self-control measures and stop it's 
monopolistic practices. Instead, Microsoft defies judicial orders to 
halt predatory practices altogether. These uncontrolled (antitrust) 
practices are a devastating injustice against Americans and 
computing industry competitors; as such must be halted by the 
Justice Department. More appropriate settlement terms must be 
pursued, or Microsoft must be split up.
    Please don't turn you back on America. Do not accept the 
settlement proposal.



MTC-00032383

From: Claude Prevots
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/4/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings:
    The lawsuit against Microsoft was ill conceived and a serious 
detriment to the economic health of this nation. It does not help 
consumers but prevents MIcrosoft from helping consumers. The present 
settlement was too long in coming but should be accepted to end all 
further litigation. Let Microsoft innovate and consumers will 
benefit more than if further litigation is allowed to continue.
    Have a good day.
    Claude Prevots
    [email protected]



MTC-00032384

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/4/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: In my opinion, the entire Microsoft 
issue is about money and another way for the law profession to 
``feather their nest''. It has nothing to do with 
antitrust, monopolies or protecting the ``John Q Public''.
    Microsoft does NOT have monopoly on anything. There are several 
other operating system options available for which the end user can 
use the browser he or she prefers. As a matter of fact, he or she 
can use the browser of choice with Windows!
    I use Microsoft products on a regular basis. It is my choice to 
use these products because, as a developer, my customer base also 
uses Microsoft products and in order for my products to function on 
my customers equipment, I must produce software that will work on 
their equipment.
    If the customer base used Unix, Apple, or O/S 2, I would 
probably go that route. Every dollar Microsoft spends to protect 
itself from frivolous litigation means that I am going to have to 
spend more for products I use. As with taxes, corporations do not 
pay for the cost of litigation-- their customers do!
    The only winners going this route are those folks with 
``Esquire'' after their names. Please end this as soon as 
possible. ``Trickle Down Economics'' goes both ways, you 
know!
    Sincerely,
    Robert L. Dahlberg
    Carol E. Dahlberg
    145 W Midway Blvd
    Broomfield, CO 80020



MTC-00032385

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: USDOJ
Date: 1/4/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    I will keep my comments short, not through lack of interest, but 
because it is high time this case is settled for the good of the 
consumers. The Tunney Act is fair to all concerned. Let us now end 
this case and get the DOJ back to prosecuting criminals and 
Microsoft back to making software.
    Stephen DeWalt



MTC-00032386

From: James O'Connell
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/5/02 9:40am
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
    Dear Department of Justice:
    As a principal software engineer who's been working in the 
software industry for years, I want to express to you how happy I 
was to see a settlement with Microsoft, thereby ending three years 
of antitrust lawsuits.
    Upon review of the terms, it is evident that the settlement is 
more than fair. The terms require Microsoft to design future 
versions of Windows, to make it easier to install non-Microsoft 
software, and to disclose information about certain internal 
interfaces in Windows. The terms also promote significant change in 
the way Microsoft develops, licenses, and markets its software. A 
committee to make sure that Microsoft abides by the agreement will 
oversee all of this. Not only are these terms well thought out, but 
also they obviously benefit all parties involved.
    I am sure that there are many other pressing issues to 
concentrate on rather than continue to focus on Microsoft. The more 
we delay this process, the more we delay getting our technology 
industry back on its feet. The global market is an extremely 
competitive one, and we need to stay on top of the race. Please help 
support our IT sector by helping to make sure that no further action 
is taken against the current settlement.
    Sincerely,
    James W. O'Connell
    99 Winsor Ave
    Watertown, MA 02472-1482



MTC-00032387

From: Dariusz Jarzynski
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 9:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a Microsoft software user, and a citizen of this great 
country, I support the US government and Microsoft efforts to settle 
the current lawsuit to the benefit of the consumer. I strongly 
support this settlement which allows the best and most inovative 
corporations to continue to develop the best software programs as a 
result of their creativity, their consumer-oriented research and 
their willingness to contribute to develop a more efficient work 
environment.
    Darek Jarzynski
    Issaquah, WA



MTC-00032389

From: Susan Sheridan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 29809]]

    I don't believe that anti-trust laws are constitutional. The 
government should not be involved in economics. Please repeal the 
Sherman Antitrust laws.
    Susan Sheridan



MTC-00032390

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:21pm
Subject: Please Allow Microsoft to Operate Without Penalties
    Capitalist America is supposed to boost Capitalism, not destroy 
it. Many of us profit when Microsoft profits. Employees, customers, 
investors all benefit. This action should not have been taken to 
advance the competitors who instigated it. Settle it now and let 
Microsoft and its beneficiaries get on with their business.
    Pat and Fred Carlson, 766 Calle Pecos, Thousand Oaks, ca 91360.
    [email protected]



MTC-00032391

From: Fabiano Moya
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Att. To Whom it May Concern
    As many others Alternative Operational Systems that have been 
hurt by the monopolistic policies of MicroSoft. We received the 
request from the headers of various projects to manifest ourselves 
and let our minds be known, so here it is, agreeing to the last ii 
and jj to the requests being made by many users all over the world.
    I am part of a worldwide network that is working on getting the 
BeOS back into the market place, but there is no hope of success if 
the following issues aren't addressed:
    MS Office needs to be opened, so that developers interested in 
porting it or understanding the document formats can do so either in 
form of a source code licence or an allowance to see it, check it 
and ``clone libraries'', so that applications on non- 
Windows OSs can read and write MS Office formats for flawless 
interaction with Windows users.
    The Win32 API needs to be made available (incl. undocumented 
APIs) so that WINE can be successfully ported not only to BeOS but 
other OS too.
    The file system needs to be opened, so that BeOS users can 
continue to access files on non-BFS partitions.
    The ruling must include a ``must-carry'' rule, so that 
any OEM Microsoft is supplying Windows with HAS to ``dual-
boot'' an alternative operating system, in this case BeOS, in 
order to remedy the damage MS has done to BeOS in the past.



MTC-00032392

From: Stu Adler
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Enough is enough! Microsoft provides excellent product support 
at no charge, while their competitors don't even know what the term 
means. Microsoft has EARNED their position by savvy marketing, 
customer support and reasonable prices. The agreement with the DOJ 
was fair. What the states want is the destruction of Microsoft so 
that their home town losers can form a new monopoly of high priced 
products with lousy service. This is NOT in the best interest of the 
community of users!
    Stu Adler
    14914 Mayall St.
    Mission Hills, CA 91345



MTC-00032393

From: Jack O'Leery
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 10:45pm
Subject: settlement
    B.Gates, et al:
    MSFT uber alles!! Don't give up the ship. The whole US is sick 
and tired of the DOJ hammering MSFT with no real objective other 
than to inflate the egos of its zealot lawyers. All the best, and 
happy new year!! OPHTH1, an admirer.



MTC-00032394

From: Ben
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am a Microsoft ``Consumer'', as well as a Microsoft 
shareholder in my IRA. I am retired and a Social Security recipient. 
And I guess that this is my only opportunity to say what I think re 
the DOJ vs. Microsoft settlement. So here it is.
    If Netscape, Sun Microsystems, et al, think that they have been 
``screwed'', how about me? As I recall, Netscape joined 
with AOL in a deal that paid Netscape appx. four billion dollars. 
Now isn't that a sad story! But I had Microsoft stock in my IRA for 
my retirement days (I am now 73 years of age), and I lost 50% of my 
retirement fund within days of the time that Judge Jackson, 
extremely biased against Microsoft by anybody's standards,decided to 
rule that the company that has done more for the U.S. economy than 
any other in recent history should be split apart. My retirement 
funds, along with those of thousands of others, were lost apparently 
because Microsoft's competitors opted to pressure Congress (Orrin 
Hatch, for one) and the Department of Justice to make their 
businesses successful, rather than to achieve comparable success 
through their own brain power and effort.
    I owned my own small business and no Attorney General, lawyers 
or courts helped me. My company provided good products and good 
service. And when I installed a Microsoft system (that makes me a 
``Consumer'') I did not feel cheated. I was happy with the 
product I purchased and am still happy with the equipment I still 
use at home in my retirement years. But my retirement prospects are 
not nearly such a pretty sight due to this litigation that is going 
on and on and on and on.
    The proposed settlement appears to be a good one for all 
concerned. My congratulations to both the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft for that. But what right do those still opposing the 
settlement have to harm me further for their own selfish interests? 
Let them get to work, just as I did (on a smaller basis, of course), 
and make it on their own merits instead of sponging off of someone 
else's intelligence and hard work.
    In this time of national stress this country and all of us need 
all of the incentive our economy and our stock market can get. Our 
President is right! Our economy needs a stimulus--and it won't 
come by cow-towing to limited selfish interests by such as those 
refusing to accept the proposed settlement and vowing to pursue 
further litigation. Let's get on with what's best for our country, 
our elderly (myself and my wife included), and all others with 
retirement programs of all ages, our military men and women, and 
those who are just plain happy with their Microsoft products. Enough 
of this particular hasseling and litigation. Bill and Melinda Gates 
have set an outstanding example by donating over a billion dollars 
of their personal income (undoubtedly mostly from Microsoft profits) 
to very worthy charities throughout the world. How rewarding it 
would be if some of these litigation-happy competitors would do 
likewise with even a small fraction of the big bucks they are 
contributing to big-name trial lawyers!!
    God Bless America.
    Respectfully Submitted,
    S. Ben Riva
    Bellevue, Washington .



MTC-00032395

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I would just like to say that Microsoft should not be broken up 
by any means. It's not the jurisdiction of our government do define 
competition as total equality. It would be punishing people who have 
worked hard to create a product that people like and buy. The 
government does not have the right to say who prospers or define 
one's earnings. Now that Explorer is free it forces Netscape to be 
original, provide the consumer with something new that Explorer does 
not allow. It forces other people to create, to strive. You do not 
punish Gates for being successful. Apple computer still has a 
wonderful product which they sell. The government suppressing 
individuals ability to create is everything the framers of our 
constitution would go against. Gates has the right to his property. 
This is the equivalent of if I owned large amounts of land so I 
could sell it at lower prices hurting real estate companies, so the 
government took my land. That says that my property is not mine, but 
rather everything I own is up to the discretion of the state to 
take. We do not live in a socialist government, and I fear that this 
decision would be another attempt for the government to define our 
lives as a collective regime to help one another. Look the 
government cannot violate ones property rights. If this decision 
goes through then that says that says the government can control 
ones property which is strait communist no doubt. There's no 
violation of the law unless Microsoft hurts the rights of another.
    The constitution says we as individuals have the right in the 
pursuit of happiness. That does not mean happiness is guaranteed to 
the individual. Neither does it mean the state has the right to 
define the level of happiness we're allowed. Please please please do 
not break up Microsoft.

[[Page 29810]]



MTC-00032396

From: The Talleys
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/5/02 11:52pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I agree with the terms of the settlement.



MTC-00032397

From: Carol Kelly
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/6/02 5:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Kelly
78401 Bigelow Way
Cottage Grove, OR 97424-9430
January 6, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carol A. Kelly



MTC-00032398

From: Sean OToole
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    TO: US Dept of Justice.
    As a concerned citizen and tax payer I urge you to put the 
Microsoft case to rest. It may have been a nice idea for the Federal 
Government and State Governments to sue Microsoft when the economy 
was soaring and the states saw dollar signs....those days are gone. 
I understand that a few high level government officials are looking 
for private sector jobs and like to make a name for themselves while 
they have the unlimited budget of the taxpayer. If we continue to 
allow a few lawyers seek name recognition at the expense of the 
corporation we will destroy our free economy.
    The governments job should be to protect the greater public 
interest and allow Americans to pursue their own happiness. It has 
been made very clear in this case that Microsoft has not damaged the 
consumer or the public's interest. I appreciate all our government 
does. Americans truly are fortunate to live here and I am grateful 
for the Department of Justice and the people who serve there.
    In this matter I think we should let the free market solve the 
competitive issues.
    Thank you.
    SEAN OTOOLE



MTC-00032399

From: Aubrey Brewster
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 4:48pm
Subject: (no subject)
    I think the microsoft settlement is Fair let it stand.
    Thanks Aubrey Brewster



MTC-00032402

From: John Mulhall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/6/02 8:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Mulhall
7 Evergreen Lane
Cazenovia, NY 13035
January 6, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John A. Mulhall

[[Page 29811]]



MTC-00032403

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/6/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dear DOJ,
I believe that it's in the best interest of American consumers (and 
indeed of the US economy) for the DOJ to quickly resolve it's issues 
with Microsoft. I think that there never really was a case against 
Microsoft that warranted any kind of major penalties.
    Thank you.
    Larry Delaney
    Consumer and small business owner



MTC-00032404

From: Jonathan Tarbox
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/7/02 7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs;
    I was deeply involved with the BeOS operating system at one time 
and would greatly love to get back into the swing of things with it. 
However, since Be, Inc. is no more and Palm is hesitant about 
licensing out the BeOS source code to the BeUnited project 
(www.beunited.org), I thought I'd voice my opinion.
    The main thing that prevented BeOS, or any non-Microsoft 
operating system, from being shipped on any mainstream OEM computers 
was the MS licensing preventing OEM companies from being able to 
install other operating system. There should be no bonus or penalty 
to an OEM for not installing or installing another operating system 
on a shipping PC. From what I knew of the deal, an OEM company would 
loose out on bonuses that Microsoft would award thier OEM purchasers 
if they installed other operating systems on thier shipping PCs.
    And because of the lack of OEM support, hardware manufacturers 
would often not write drivers for thier hardware for the BeOS. This 
greatly hurt the momentem of the BeOS to a point that the owners of 
Be, Inc. had to shift focus to Internet Appliance devices instead of 
PCs. This also didn't pan out and the IP of Be, Inc. was sold to 
Palm recently.
    Personally, I believe the settlement should prevent MS from 
using licensing or monetary bonuses to sway OEMs into using only MS 
products on thier PCs. It should also remove limitation of not 
allowing any other operating system to dual boot with any MS 
operating system. Thanks, Jonathan Tarbox



MTC-00032405

From: chester c fong
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 9:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To Department. of Justice
Re: Microsoft Settlement
    As a private citizen, this case should be closed and left as is. 
It has cost quite a bit of money to work on this case both from the 
government (representing the people), the taxpayers who pay the 
government to perform, and the Microsoft Co. who are the defendants 
of this case.
    The settlement brought forth by the lower courts is a fair one. 
It costs Microsoft Company to pay for its transgressions of the law 
and the Plaintiffs should be happy. The public (taxpayers) are sick 
and tired of this case dragging over the past two years.
    This case has been deemed fair by the courts, let it be. In the 
interests of justice for everyone concerned it is closed.
    Private Citizen,
    Chester Fong
    801 Franklin St.
    Oakland, Ca 94607



MTC-00032406

From: Les Thompson
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/7/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I wanted to let you know that I think the government made the 
right choice in ending its litigation against Microsoft. Frankly, 
the Justice Department never should have continued the action 
against this company in the first place, and I am glad to see that 
the matter is finally resolved.
    Microsoft makes innovative products, and this is not an excuse 
to break up this company. Microsoft has agreed to share information 
with its competitors, but it will still be allowed to develop 
products that will improve the technology industry. The settlement 
is fair and was reached after extensive negotiations. A technical 
review committee will ensure that Microsoft complies with the terms 
of the settlement.
    I believe you have made the right decision by settling with 
Microsoft. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Les Thompson
    Leslie Thompson



MTC-00032409

From: Mike Pritchard
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 11:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In my opinion... the DOJ should back off a little.
    I think the DOJ investigation is being driven by competitors of 
Microsoft. I also think Microsoft's competitors are jealous because 
they have been unable to duplicate Microsoft's success.
    Do you remember what it was like to work with computers in the 
70's and 80's??? Proprietary computers running proprietary software. 
Hardware and software costs were outrageous and maintenance cost 
weren't much better.
    Software programs were not standardized and they didn't always 
play nice with each other. The philosophy of big computer companies 
seemed to be, ``Do it our way or don't do it''. Trying to 
get different computer to work together was very frustrating (if not 
impossible).
    Microsoft could have played by the same rules as everybody else 
(in the computer industry). Instead, today we have standards and 
tightly integrated tools for developing and running software.
    I do not think Microsoft is a Monopoly. They do not own the 
hardware and software (unlike Apple and IBM), and there are many 
operating systems to choose from. You can run several types of UNIX, 
Macintosh, OS2, etc... Most people choose MSWindows. It is quite 
nice to have many tools integrated into the MS operating system.
    Because of its size it may be a good idea to keep an eye on 
Microsoft, but in my opinion they should get a commendation for what 
they have accomplished. Microsoft has made my job easier and more 
productive.
    Michael A Pritchard
    Access Development
    Director of IS, CIO
    SLC, Ut



MTC-00032410

From: Mader, John
To: ``Microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/7/02 12:55pm
Subject: Anti-Trust Settlement
    To whom it may concern
    I feel that if the present settlement is allowed to stand 
(Microsoft allowed to continue shipping their applications bundled 
with their operating system) the consumer will have to pay the cost 
of mitigation. With the clout that the operating system gives 
Microsoft they will be able to move into any lucrative software 
market after other firms develop those markets. This pattern is very 
evident (i.e. Java, Palm, Sun). Eventually most of the other players 
will be pushed out of the market, and Microsoft will be successful 
in creating a barrier to the software market. This loss of 
competition will not serve the interest of the American people. I 
ask the court to break Microsoft into 2 or more companies.
    John Mader
    10228 Gatemont Circle
    Elk Grove Ca. 95624



MTC-00032412

From: JudeAVettraino
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 3:40pm



MTC-00032413

From: Cornel Sarosdy
To: DOJ
Date: 1/7/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Neither the DOJ nor the court should do nothing to contravene 
the settlement already completed between DOJ and MSFT. The case of 
the states still suing should be thrown out by the court. I have 
used MSFT products for many years and have never thought to be taken 
advantage of by MSFT.
    Cornel Sarosdy



MTC-00032415

From: Eberhard Hafermalz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:05pm
Subject: Settlement with MicroSoft
    Dear Sir/Madam
    Following a request by Helmar Rudolph who is part of the 
BeUnited Team and with whom a DOJ person has talked on January 4, 
2002, I would like to submit my views on what is necessary to remedy 
the damage done to the market for PC operating systems (OS) by 
MicroSoft.

[[Page 29812]]

    I am not a developer but a user of the BeOS, an alternative 
operating system widely acclaimed for its potential as a desktop OS. 
I would like to stress that the BeOS never has taken off as a widely 
used OS on the PC market. Not because it does not have the 
potential; there is publicly available numerous evidence to the 
contrary. The BeOS has died because computer makers were not allowed 
to pre-install this OS on their systems instead of or even alongside 
a MicroSoft OS, thus precluding a broad distribution. It is a known 
fact that computer makers declined the offer of Be, Inc., the maker 
of BeOS, to ship their machines with the BeOS pre-installed because 
this would invoke the respective punitive clauses in the licensing 
agreement they had with MicroSoft.
    Further, when installing a MicroSoft OS onto a computer already 
equipped with the BeOS (or any other OS), the MicroSoft OS wipes the 
so-called bootblock, resulting in the computer only booting into the 
MicroSoft OS afterwards. As is well known, MicroSoft OSs are prone 
to get unusable after a short period of time, requiring extensive 
maintenance which more often than not is easiest done by re-
installing the whole system. This obviously invokes the bootblock 
problem every time a re-install is conducted.
    These two issues alone make it almost impossible for the average 
computer user to (a) acquire a non-MicroSoft OS running computer, 
and (b) maintain a dual-boot system where one of the OSs is a 
MicroSoft one.
    The remedy for issue (a) would be to disallow MicroSoft in clear 
terms the use of any contractual clauses in their licensing 
agreements that restrict the decision of the computer maker on what 
OS, if any, to ship with the computer they manufacture.
    The remedy for issue (b) is to disallow MicroSoft the 
overwriting of the bootblock when Windows (or another MicroSoftware) 
is installed. This is technically possible by giving the user the 
choice which systems to boot into. Resolving issue (b) is in fact 
complementary to issue (a) for the reasons explained above; 
otherwise MicroSoft would be allowed to abuse their dominant market 
position by simply accomplishing at a later point in time what they 
have been denied at the manufacturer's stage: killing the competing 
OS on the same computer.
    In light of the MicroSoft strategy of the past, the above is not 
the only remedy I think necessary because it would only create a 
level playing field. MicroSoft would be allowed to maintain the 
fruit of their previous unfair competition practice. Thus it appears 
justified to require MicroSoft to cede proprietary information in 
areas where it has acquired a de-facto monopoly by way of utilizing 
advantages from their unfair competitive behavior.
    Most importantly, this includes the ``office'' part of 
the company's business. MicroSoft Office is the standard because 
Office was pressed onto the consumer as ``part of 
Windows'', which--as well as the Internet 
Explorer--it is not. MicroSoft thus utilized the practice 
described above to eliminate any competitor in this software 
segment.
    In order for rival makers of office software to compete they 
need the information required to create translators, software add-
ons (``plug-ins'' in Windows-speak) that allow the 
competing software to import from and export files to MicroSoft 
Office (and other) formats. I would like to point out that in order 
to accomplish this it is not required that MicroSoft open their 
source code of Windows, MicroSoft Office, or any other software.
    Moreover, I would like to bring to your attention that it is not 
only Windows, and MicroSoftware running on Windows, that needs to be 
included in a settlement. MicroSoft is already showing the same 
patterns of behavior as before in the market for handheld computers. 
Also they are obviously trying to delay any remedial action against 
the Windows monopoly in the desktop computer market until Windows is 
no longer their main productline. Any settlement that is to create 
and ensure a level playing field in the longer term not only needs 
to remove the Windows monopoly but at the same time include any 
future OS or, indeed, software MicroSoft might sell, be it 
``.Net'' software, Windows CE/Stinger, or any other 
product.
    Finally, please revise your stance on the issue of MicroSoft's 
``giving away freely'' computers, software, and service 
for these to schools. This is no remedy but an opportunity. It will 
create a new market for the company. These days MicroSoft's power to 
abuse their position stems from the very fact that for most people 
the term ``computer'' automatically means 
``Windows'', i.e. MicroSoft. Letting MicroSoft ``make 
good'' for their abusive behavior by opening one of the few 
places where competing OS maker Apple still holds a better than 
insignificant market share would mean, as we say in Germany, to try 
to expel the devil with the Beelzebub.
    The fate of innovation is at stake. Innovation cannot come from 
a company that has been holding the monopoly for almost ten years 
now. There is much better, much more innovative software out there 
than MicroSoft one but it will never have a chance.
    Unless MicroSoft is forced to give it that chance.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Faithfully yours
    Eberhard Hafermalz



MTC-00032416

From: Pamela Schmidt
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 6:56pm
Subject: Ending Clinton Anti-trust abuse
    To whom it may concern:
    You have my full support to do what is just and lawful to 
correct any abuses allowed through the Clinton years. I know that 
you will know just what to do.
    Sincerely yours,
    Pamela J. Schmidt



MTC-00032417

From: Dennis McKenna
To: sirs
Date: 1/7/02 8:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I undrestand that there is finally a settlement that has been 
reached in the Microsoft case and I can only say this:
    Why has it taken so long? This entire case was misguided. As an 
American citizen I cannot believe that we do not have something 
better to do with our tax dollars than investigate a fine, 
innovative American company that provides excellent products for 
reasonable prices to all. What would the world be like without 
Microsoft's innovation? And what, I ask was their crime? That they 
were so good at what they did that they had little competition. This 
was a natural monopoly which sooner or later would have come up 
against natural competition. It's not the role of government to step 
in and smash such a company. We should be providing a favorable 
environment for more US companies to step up their level of 
innovation and become the next Microsofts. Please go ahead and get 
this thing over with so we can close the book on this embarrassing 
chapter of US history.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis McKenna
    4207 Lenzgrove Lane
    La Canada, CA 91011



MTC-00032418

From: Mary Jo Reddick
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 8:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We think it is a tough but fair settlement--for all parties 
involved. Stop wasting the tax payers money-- competition is 
wonderful for consumers like our family. We are an average working 
family who appreciate good quality products at fair prices that 
Microsoft has made available to us. We don't appreciate our hard 
earned tax money being wasted on frivolous, vengeful lawsuits. 
Enough already.
    Donald and Mary Jo Reddick
    Lancaster, CA



MTC-00032419

From: Michael Belcher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/7/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Belcher
po box 5681
pahrump, nv 89041-5681
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks

[[Page 29813]]

of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from this 
lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, 
which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather than 
months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Belcher



MTC-00032420

From: Nelsons
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/7/02 10:43pm
Subject: It will be very good for the US economy if this case was 
settled
    It will be very good for the US economy if this case was settled 
prior to the March hearings. The nine states that are holding out 
are obviously trying to protect their companies in their own state. 
e.g. Oracle, AOL, Sun Microsystems etc. They are putting themselves 
above the consumer by delaying the settlement. All they want is 
their pound of flesh, nothing more. It is getting so obvious that 
hopefully the judge will see through it. It was a good thing the DOJ 
made the effort to settle with Microsoft. The sooner it is over, the 
better it will be for the stock market and the consuming public.
    Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
    Charles D Nelson
    [email protected]



MTC-00032421

From: Jane Pehl
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 6:47am
Subject: Microsoft
    It is time to end the tyranny of the Clinton years! Get out of 
the life of American business and taxpayers!! Why are you not 
prosecuting true criminals like the Clintons and their accomplices 
during their eight year crimes spree?
    Jane Pehl
    San Antonio, Texas



MTC-00032422

From: Rose Marie Lavelle
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 8:07am
Subject: for all the people,not the few
    Let us move on with the things of today and not the pass,end it 
now!
    ROBERT M.LAVELLE
    122 WHISPERING PINE DR.
    PALM COAST FL. 32164



MTC-00032424

From: Steve Sawyer
To: `microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov'
Date: 1/8/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft anti-trust case
    Greetings,
    I have been involved in the IT industry since 1981. I watched 
Microsoft, Apple and others work their way up the corporate ladder 
with innovative ideas and hard work. They deserve much of the fruits 
of their labor.
    However, in Microsoft's case, they have been doing much more 
harm than good to the consumer over the past several years. As a 
graduate of the University of Oregon School of Business 
Administration, I have watched with fascination the methods with 
which Microsoft has eliminated competition and coerced vendors into 
doing business Microsoft's way. All of this while their own products 
continue to slide, in terms of quality and technical advancement. 
The result is a two-edged sword. They spend time and resources 
wiping out competitive ideas leaving little reason or incentive to 
improve their own.
    Then the Government and the courts comes along and 
``endorses'' this approach by mandating toothless laws 
with little or no enforcement. Microsoft is trying to do this with 
Linux as well as others. Microsoft is a great company. Bill Gates 
and crew should be applauded for what they have done for technology. 
However, Microsoft has become a textbook example of why we have 
rules governing monopolistic practices in this country. When Billy 
Graham gets caught speeding he receives a ticket for speeding and he 
pays the fine. Microsoft got caught and it is time to pay the fine.
    Do America and Microsoft a favor and put a stop to the dark side 
of Microsoft.
    Thank you...
    Steve 
    Steve Sawyer
    Director of Internet Development
    Market America, Inc.
    [email protected] 



MTC-00032425

From: Michael Sauber
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/8/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Sauber
219 Hidden Creek Lane
North Aurora, Il 60542
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to

[[Page 29814]]

substitute competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael L. Sauber



MTC-00032426

From: Charlotte Worden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/8/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlotte Worden
1821 2nd St
Lewiston, ID 83501
January 8, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charlotte Worden



MTC-00032427

From: Paula Benner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 10:37am
    file:///C/win/temp/tmp.htn
    I want to end Clinton-era Anti-trust law abuse!



MTC-00032429

From: Ben Hughes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 2:11pm
Subject: Clinton Era
    I would like to see the end of the Clinton era abuse of anti-
trust legislation and court action. Microsoft has provided jobs to 
multitudes of people and made millionaires of another group who 
started out as workers.
    Thank you,
    Sue & Ben Hughes
    Lindale, Texas



MTC-00032430

From: Bob (038) Caryl Horstmeier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/8/02 4:17pm
Subject: GOVT. SHAKEDOWN OF MICROSOFT
    DEAR WHO EVER AT JUSTICE DEPT;
    I BELIEVE THAT MICRO SOFT DOES NOT RATE A SHAKE DOWN BY THE 
GOVT. JUST BECAUSE MICROSOFT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SLICK WILLY. THE 
REST OF THE WORLD IS WONDERING WHY WE SHAKE DOWN OUR BEST ACHIEVERS.
    ROBERT HORSTMEIER, 112 STANTON STREET, DAVIS ILLINOIS, 
61019-0183
    [email protected]



MTC-00032432

From: ARTHUR HUPP
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 2:17am
Subject: E-Mail Settlement
    Enough is Enough!!!!! Let's let Mircosoft get on with being a 
successful company and quit wasting the taxpayers money!!!!
    Art Hupp



MTC-00032433

From: Craig Madsen
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/9/02 7:32am
Subject: FW: Microsoft Antitrust Case
From: Craig Madsen
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 4:42 PM
To: ``[email protected]''
Subject:Microsoft Antitrust Case
    Dear DOJ, etc.,
    I am writing to put my 2 cents worth about the antitrust case 
against Microsoft Corp.
    I feel like Microsoft is using their OS dominance to stifle 
every bit of competition possible. I totally agree with the 9 states 
that are fighting this thing to the bitter end. I also don't agree 
with the current settlement at all. For Microsoft to spend a bunch 
of money for the schools does absolutely nothing to stop them from 
continuing to do what they have been doing for years--except 
try to catch up with Apple, Inc. in the school battles!! I also 
don't mind spending my tax dollars to do whatever is necessary to 
make them pay for what they have already done.
    We watched them ``give away'' a browser and all but 
kill a competitor(s). Tomorrow they start giving away databases, and 
before long, who knows? If there was a competitor to the government, 
they would buy them, reduce the price on whatever they were selling 
to nothing and kill them off too. Once dead, they can raise the 
price back to whatever they need to.
    Do I want Microsoft dead? Probably not, however, I want them to 
have to use the same playing field as the rest of the businesses in 
america that don't control 90% of the operating system business. 
Break them up. Make
    them give out their source code to anyone, so we could all make 
products as quickly as them!
    p.s.
    I was trying to send this to: microsoft.atr@usdoj as 
well, but my e-mail package didn't like this. Do you know how I can 
get a copy of this to them?
    Thanks,
    Craig Madsen
    (801)-961-3045
    155 North 400 West
    Salt Lake City, UT 84103-1111



MTC-00032435

From: Mundlapati Jawahar
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mundlapati Jawahar
4759 e culver st
phoenix, az 85008
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has

[[Page 29815]]

cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mundlapati Jawahar



MTC-00032436

From: LOUIS TURRO
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
LOUIS TURRO
591 PALMER AVE
MAYWOOD, NJ 07607
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    LOUIS TURRO



MTC-00032437

From: Joseph O'Hara
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph O'Hara
17521 leafwood lane
Tustin, CA 92780
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was

[[Page 29816]]

allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-
installed software on their computers. It will also be easier to 
substitute competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joe O'Hara



MTC-00032438

From: Dawn Case
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dawn Case
2436 Richmond Rd.
Woodward, OK 73801-7125
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dawn Case



MTC-00032439

From: Adrian J. Dekker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Adrian J. Dekker
11929 Eagle Creek Cove
Ft. Wayne, IN 46814
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Adrian J. Dekker



MTC-00032440

From: Norm Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norm Lee
2709 Glendale Drive
loveland, co 80538
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by

[[Page 29817]]

District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Norm Lee



MTC-00032441

From: Carl Haywood
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 10:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Haywood
1515 Patrick court
Gardnerville, NV 89410-6645
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carl Haywood



MTC-00032442

From: carl king
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
carl king
1145 bordeau ct.
atlanta, ga 30338
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our

[[Page 29818]]

investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, and 
now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    carl king



MTC-00032443

From: Richard Haugen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Haugen
740 Southgate
Fullerton, Ca 92832
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Haugen



MTC-00032444

FROM: Ray Kraft
TO: MS ATR
DATE: 1/9/02 11:07am
SUBJECT: Opinion: microsoft settlement does not address problem 
sufficiently
    I would like to voice my concern over the proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the DOJ. Given that Microsoft has been founds 
*guilty* of violating antitrust law and abusing its power in the 
computer operating system market, I feel that the measures outlined 
in the settlement will do little to redress this problem. In fact, I 
believe that some proposed ``corrective'' measures (i.e. 
those addressed at scholls) will in fact have just the opposite 
effect, and will serve to strengthen Microsoft's monopoly position.
    I would like to ask that more effective measures be proposed to 
bring about the changes required to prevent Microsoft from 
continuing to abuse its monopoly position.
    Thank you. Sincerely,
    Raymond H. Kraft, Ph.D.
    Raymond Kraft, Ph.D. [email protected]
    Associate Technical Fellow 425-657-1348
    Applied Precision, Inc.
    Issaquah Washington, USA
    GnuPG Public Key Available: http://wwww.keyserver.net/en



MTC-00032445

From: Robert Hagaman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Hagaman
13 Hibiscus Court
Homosassa, FL 34446
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert E. hagaman



MTC-00032446

From: Richard Swier
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Swier
6718 Paseo Castille
Sarasota, FL 34238
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 29819]]

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rich Swier



MTC-00032447

From: Carlton Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carlton Miller
805 Skye Drive
Findlay, Oh 45840-4436
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carlton Miller



MTC-00032448

From: mike sanford
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mike sanford
1502 riley
lebanon, in 46052
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee

[[Page 29820]]

will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    mike sanford



MTC-00032449

From: Scott Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Clark
5127 W Riviera Ave
Banning, CA 92220
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Scott Clark



MTC-00032450

From: William Hoesen Sr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 11:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Hoesen Sr
1330 Meadowknoll
San Antonio, Tx 78227
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William H Hoesen Sr



MTC-00032451

From: Christine Amirault
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christine Amirault
106 Sprucewood Court
Bonaire, GA 31005-3017
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.

[[Page 29821]]

    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Christine B. Amirault



MTC-00032452

From: Emmett Williams
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Emmett Williams
1459 East Park Place
Chicago, Il 60637-1855
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Emmett Williams



MTC-00032453

From: Joseph Parrish
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Parrish
1417 Starboard Ct.
Orange Park, FL 32003-7268
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute

[[Page 29822]]

competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joseph W. Parish



MTC-00032454

From: Mark Nielsen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 12:06pm
Subject: The current settlement with MicroSoft is bad for 
competition and for the nation
    Hello!
    MicroSoft is evil. That is a given. Given all the lies they have 
said in court over the years, you cannot trust anythng they say. 
Thus, how can you trust the settlement?
    MicroSoft was probably going to give 1 billion dollars to 
schools anyways. Then the settlement says they have to, which 
doesn't make any sense, because they were probably going to do it 
anyways. MicroSoft has always tried to grab the educational 
institutions, because when people graduate from high school or 
college, they will stick with the software they know.
    Thus:
    1. They were already going to do it anyways.
    2. It inteferes with Apple's ability to compete in the education 
market.
    MicroSoft is entirely evil and I would prefer, be destroyed. I 
would like to see it get destroyed under a competitive market, 
rather than physcial force. I like to win my battles fairly. Given 
the current republican administration, please do what makes the most 
sense for a competitive market, which you should understand since 
you are republican, and just don't so stuff that benefits the rich 
fat republicans/corporations who have no regard for our nation, just 
their pocketbook. I want business to thrive for those who deserve 
it, not those who are able to bribe/lie/cheat/steal their way into 
power because they have a lot fo money.
    Thanks!
    Mark



MTC-00032455

From: John Schuck
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:08 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Schuck
P.O. Box 1516
North Conway, NH 03860
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.Most importantly, this settlement is 
fair to the computer users and consumers of America, on whose behalf 
the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a 
variety of pre-installed software on their computers. It will also 
be easier to substitute competitors' products after purchase as 
well.
    The Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part 
of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be 
modified to comply with the settlement.This case was supposedly 
brought on behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of 
litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a 
hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, the country 
needs the economic stability this settlement can provide. This 
settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Schuck



MTC-00032456

From: Marian Hirsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marian Hirsh
96000 Overseas Hwy. F-9
Key Largo, FL 33037
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 29823]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios 
have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, 
the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Marian Hirsh



MTC-00032457

From: Raymon Brown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymon Brown
790 Abbott Rd
Lexington, KY 40502-2930
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Raymon W Brown



MTC-00032458

From: Richard Graves
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Graves
125 Wildflower Lane
Chillicothe, OH 45601-4092
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard E. Graves



MTC-00032459

From: Keith Gallup
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Keith Gallup
1707 Brandenbery Dr.
Surfside Beach, SC 29575-5478
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.

[[Page 29824]]

    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Gallup



MTC-00032460

From: Michael MacArthur
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael MacArthur
4720 Chevy Chase Dr. #406
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael K. MacArthur



MTC-00032461

From: Fred Reich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Fred Reich
718 Danville Circle
Melbourne, FL 32904
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 29825]]

    Fred Reich



MTC-00032462

From: Frederick Hoover
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frederick Hoover
106 Miller Avenue
Sayreville, NJ 08872-1378
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Frederick M. Hoover



MTC-00032464

From: William Bryant
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Bryant
6681 Gasparilla Pines Blvd
Englewood, Fl 34224
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely, Bill Bryant
    W.P. Bryant, Jr.



MTC-00032465

From: jerry ellis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
jerry ellis
180 NE IZETT ST. #A1
Oak Harbor, wa 98277
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's

[[Page 29826]]

programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    jerry ellis



MTC-00032466

From: Donald Slater
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Slater
250 Galesburg Dr.
Lawrenceville, GA 30044
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Slater



MTC-00032467

From: Kenneth Golden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Golden
1612 Harvard Woods Dr.2810
Brandon , Fl 33511-2095
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Golden



MTC-00032468

From: gandamartin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As two tax-paying citizens, we believe that the resources of the 
Justice Dept can be put to better use than pursuing Microsoft.

[[Page 29827]]

    Thank you,
    Mr & Mrs Gene Martin



MTC-00032469

From: George Klages
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Klages
Rt 1 Box 1680
Fresno, TX 77545
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George Klages



MTC-00032470

From: Dorothy Dixon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Dixon
3005 Cottonwood Court
Rowlett, TX 75088-5656
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Dixon



MTC-00032471

From: James Feild
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Feild
2240 Sharon Rd
Menlo Park, CA 94025
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service

[[Page 29828]]

providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented 
access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to 
make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    J. David Feild



MTC-00032473

From: pankavichjm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I believe that the it is in the public interest to settle with 
the Microsoft litigation. Personally, I find it hard to see how they 
were in violation at all. As far as I am concerned I always had the 
choice of using them or not.
    However, I do believe that AOL is in some kind of violation in 
this respect. Whenever I load a program that also offers AOL I 
refuse the AOL but no matter I still get their program on my screen 
and it does start to load. I also think that they are in violation 
when they include free programs in cereals, etc. and send them 
through the mail. They are bordering on being a nuisance.
    Joan M. Pankavich



MTC-00032474

From: James Franke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Franke
238 Kilkenny Court
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Franke



MTC-00032475

From: Mervin Waed
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mervin Waed
1 Margate Ct.
Lewes, DE 19958
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute

[[Page 29829]]

competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mervin C. Ward



MTC-00032476

From: W.Lawrence Kimber
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/9/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W.Lawrence Kimber
106 Elmwood Ave.
East Aurora, NY 14052-2612
January 9, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition 
in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies. Thank you for 
this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    W.Lawrence Kimber



MTC-00032477

From: 
[email protected]@inetgw
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ALBERT HUDDY
3100 POINT CLEAR DR.
TEGA CAY, SC 29708
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    ALBERT D. HUDDY



MTC-00032478

From: Gregory Schopf
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory Schopf
1096 Lincoln Ave
Fennimore, Wi 53809
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the

[[Page 29830]]

original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory Schopf



MTC-00032479

From: Carol Iossa
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Iossa
R.R. 1 Box 3130
Jonesport, ME 04649-9709
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carol H. Iossa



MTC-00032480

From: John Oubre
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Oubre
3721 Sleepy Hollow Lane
Port St. Lucie, FL 34952
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse: I would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.Most importantly, this settlement is 
fair to the computer users and consumers of America, on whose behalf 
the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a 
variety of pre-installed software on their computers. It will also 
be easier to substitute competitors' products after purchase as 
well.
    The Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part 
of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be 
modified to comply with the settlement.This case was supposedly 
brought on behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of 
litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a 
hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, the country 
needs the economic stability this settlement can provide. This 
settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change.
    Sincerely,
    John B. Oubre



MTC-00032481

From: Jacilyn Cox
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jacilyn Cox
6177 S.R. 258 S.W.
Newcomerstown, OH 43832
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from

[[Page 29831]]

continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jacilyn Cox



MTC-00032482

From: Michael Burke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Burke
P. O. Box 2624
Grand Junction, CO 81502-2624
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Burke



MTC-00032483

From: Mike Welling
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Welling
2208 Pennington Dr.
Arlington, TX 76014-3512
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.

[[Page 29832]]

    Sincerely,
    Mike Welling



MTC-00032484

From: Martin Spielman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Martin Spielman
8 Monaghan Road
Edison, NJ 08817-4122
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Martin J Spielman



MTC-00032485

From: James Carpenter
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Carpenter
4922 Del Rio Trl.
Wichita Falls, TX 76310-1431
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Carpenter, Jr.



MTC-00032486

From: Barbara Robken
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Robken
2800 Andover Ave
Midland, TX 79705-3201
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's

[[Page 29833]]

programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Robken



MTC-00032487

From: HUGH M. FLYNN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:22 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
HUGH M. FLYNN
3849 Lucas Ct.
Simi Valley, CA 93063
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    HUGH M. FLYNN



MTC-00032488

From: Donald Horneff
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:35 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Horneff
606 State St
Tama, IA 52339-1927
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Don Horneff



MTC-00032490

From: Donald Leui
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Leui
HC 1 Box 55
Martin, SD 57551

[[Page 29834]]

January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Leui



MTC-00032491

From: Eileen Flynn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:48 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eileen Flynn
411 Seventh Ave
Indialantic, FL 32903-4337
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Eileen Flynn



MTC-00032492

From: Roger Daigger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 3:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roger Daigger
15814 Stagecoach Rd.
Magnolia, , Tx 77355
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in

[[Page 29835]]

an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Roger & Dolores Daigger



MTC-00032493

From: Vivienne Erk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vivienne Erk
878 Macopin Road
West Milford, NJ 07480
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Vivienne Erk



MTC-00032494

From: Cliff Cofer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cliff Cofer
726 8th Street
West Des Moines, IA 50265-3636
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Cliff Cofer



MTC-00032495

From: Richard Taylor
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Taylor
4620 Tincher Road
Indy, IN 46221-3778
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of

[[Page 29836]]

this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Taylor



MTC-00032496

From: Victoria Manes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Victoria Manes
2528 N Champlain Ave
Tempe, AZ 85281
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Victoria Manes



MTC-00032497

From: Victoria Manes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Victoria Manes
2528 N Champlain Ave
Tempe, AZ 85281
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after

[[Page 29837]]

purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that 
were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which 
will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Victoria Manes



MTC-00032498

From: Joan Walsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 4:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joan Walsh
5459 E 4th St
Long Beach, CA 90814-1925
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joan Allen Walsh



MTC-00032499

From: Felix Knebel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 5:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Felix Knebel
17264 Tam O'Shanter Dr.
Poway, CA 92064-1323
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Felix Knebel, Jr.



MTC-00032501

From: Ralph Hudson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Hudson
116 Jordan Circle
Garner, NC 27529-7953
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking

[[Page 29838]]

effect immediately rather than months or years from now when all 
appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Hudson



MTC-00032502

From: Jim Poulton
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 5:38pm
Subject: Retired USAF SWBell union memeber & MS Stockholder
    Is our government stupid?
    Quit screwing with the brightest light in our economy.
    If any other nation in the world had Microsoft in their country 
they would back them to the limit. Only because our country allows 
foreign lobbyists and because we have so many other multi-national 
companies bribing our officials do we have this problem. Support the 
USA and our workers and KNOCK IT OFF!
    James Poulton
    USAF (retired) MSgt
    214-902-8996



MTC-00032503

From: Robert Arnold Isley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 5:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Arnold Isley
2500 Bangor Ct
Snellville, GA 30078
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. 
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up computer 
manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    R. Arnold Isley



MTC-00032504

From: Steven Brown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steven Brown
504 Sleepy Meadow Drive
MOUNT VERNON, mo 65712
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of

[[Page 29839]]

America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Steven Brown



MTC-00032505

From: Howard George
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard George
5305 Water Point Drive
Memphis, tn 38141
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Howard George



MTC-00032506

From: Charles Boyette
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Boyette
274 Steens Road
Steens, MS 39766
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Boyette



MTC-00032507

From: MR.AND MRS.ROBERT NELSON
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MR.AND MRS.ROBERT NELSON
7582 HICKAM AVE.
LAS VEGAS, NV 89129
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As

[[Page 29840]]

noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for 
a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    NELSON,ROBERT H. AND MARY L.



MTC-00032508

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/9/02 7:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern.
    I generally do not write E-mails on the behalf of big business. 
But I find this whole Microsoft saga disturbing. I do not agree with 
the idea that Microsoft should be punished or broken up. I think 
that Microsoft is an industry leader, in part because of its 
aggressive and forward thinking business practices, vital for 
competition in a very competitive market. I for one am thankful for 
what Microsoft has done. I think that the tremendous advances in 
computer technology can be attributed to Microsoft.
    I can assure you that if another company comes out with a 
product that I read about or try and find it that I like it better 
than Microsoft's version, I would certainly buy the product that I 
liked.
    If Microsoft feels that this latest judgment is fair, then I 
would have to agree.
    Thank you for your time. John Horlick



MTC-00032509

From: Edward Evanko
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Evanko
1885 Military Ave
Seaside, CA 93955
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edward P. Evanko



MTC-00032510

From: Raymond Bauer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Raymond Bauer
13763 Eureka Drive
Magalia, CA 95954
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an

[[Page 29841]]

operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Raymond Bauer



MTC-00032511

From: Robert & June Stone
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert & June Stone
28120 Avenida Maravilla
Cathedral City, CA 92234-3771
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert & June Stone



MTC-00032512

From: John Green
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/9/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Green
2125 Elanita Dr.
San Pedro, CA 90732-4433
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Green



MTC-00032513

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement of the M$ anti trust action represents a 
complete failure of the current laws to protect consumers & 
ensure a level playing field for competition.
    Microsoft failed to abide by the origonal judgement against 
them, has clearly continued their anti competitive behaviour and has 
now taken that behaviour to even higher levels with the release of 
Windows XP.

[[Page 29842]]

    The issues with XP are far wider & more serious than any 
previous behaviour & this behaviour is apparently now being 
condoned by this settlement which provides M$ with a platform to 
further promote their products over any alternatives.
    Within Australia the pricing issues alone are beyond belief. US 
Court evidence indicated 50% overcharging of consumers, with 
exchange rates taken into account the overcharging in Australia has 
been 200% and now with XP, the removal of Domain login from the 
basic/home version of the operating system, small business will be 
forced to move from a $A400 operating system to an $A660 operating 
system. Some 80% of small business is affected & the cost 
worldwide will run into $USBillions. The pricing of the M$ component 
of any PC price has risen in a market of dramatically increasing 
volumes, the opposite of normal market behaviour where shipment 
volumes increase.
    This has been possible due to the monopoly position. In some 
cases the M$ component is now 50% of PC manufacturing Price. There 
is also an element of using US PC manufacturers to engage in product 
dumping into the international market to the detriment of 
international PC assemblers. The court evidence indicates some US 
manufacturers purchased NT4 Operating System at $US20 where local 
manufaturers in Australia were being charged $A320 ($US160) The 
schools concerned could utilise free open source software rather 
than waste money on M$ software & thus free up resources for 
additional hardware or teaching resources.
    Throughout the current case M$ has been clearly in contempt of 
the courts in their actions which have been designed to ensure that 
it was not possible to recall or change products in the field with 
the browser (as distinct from the HTML rendering engine & 
communications utilities) embedded in the Operating Systems. The 
W98SE & Windows ME releases along with various Browser updates 
have been dubbed ``The DOJ releases'' with good reason. 
This case has been a classic example of how a Corporation can use 
delaying tactics in the courts to their advantage & profit from 
those tactics.
    This proposal for settlement should be withdrawn and a regime 
which ensures an open standards interface approach is adopted with 
full disclosure of all API's for application services & network 
services put in it's place. Penalties which reflect the magnitude of 
the crime and recover the revenue improperly gained by M$ during the 
case should also be put in place In addition to the above a public 
list of areas in which people believe M$ has/is acting improperly 
should be initiated. There are numerous areas in which this has been 
the case & the current case has only brushed the surface. A 
public list/discussion board is the only way in which the technical 
details of how M$ has acted anticompetitively will ever be fully 
disclosed or determined.
    Competition law will not be treated with any respect by 
Corporations unless this settlement is revised
    Wayne Carruthers



MTC-00032514

From: Francis Bittel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 4:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis Bittel
2471 Jennifer Drive
Poland, Oh 44514
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Francis J Bittel



MTC-00032515

From: Tom Friedman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tom Friedman
25 Whispering Spring Dr.
Pisgah Forest, , NC 28768-9502
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of

[[Page 29843]]

America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers 
will be able to select a variety of pre-installed software on their 
computers. It will also be easier to substitute competitors' 
products after purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and 
software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows 
XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Friedman



MTC-00032516

From: Bob White
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob White
9774 Hidden Cross
San Antonio, TX 78250-4817
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bob White



MTC-00032517

From: Christopher Perdue
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Christopher Perdue
    1509 Carmel Road
    Charlotte, NC 28226-5013
    January 10, 2002
    Ms. Renata Hesse
    U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Christopher Perdue



MTC-00032518

From: Kevin Sipes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kevin Sipes
2602 camarie Ave
Midland, TX 79705
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism,

[[Page 29844]]

including homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Sipes



MTC-00032519

From: George F Kovacs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George F Kovacs
255 E. Baltimore St.
Taneytown, MD 21787-2235
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    [email protected]



MTC-00032520

From: Rick Rund
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rick Rund
POB 1409 260 No. Gulling
Portola, Ca 96122-1409
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 29845]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios 
have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, 
the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rick Rund



MTC-00032521

From: Diane Sosebeee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Sosebeee
103 McMillan St.
Evergreen, AL 36401
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Diane S. Sosebee



MTC-00032522

From: Mike Strain
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mike Strain
30665 Old Hwy 395
Escondido, ca 92026
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Strain



MTC-00032523

From: Tracy Stone
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tracy Stone
101 Savannah Drive
Matthews, NC 28105-6539
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ,

[[Page 29846]]

the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. 
Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Tracy Stone



MTC-00032524

From: David Zickefoose
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 7:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Zickefoose
10314 Washington Drive
Omaha, NE 68127
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    David C. Zickefoose



MTC-00032526

From: Delmonte, Tom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 8:18am
    First of all thank you for allowing us to voice our concerns.
    My main focus is the pattern that Microsoft has exhibited over 
the 15 years that I have been involved in the IT arena.
    The first negative experience was one which happened with a 
company called Stacker, in which it was proved that Microsoft had 
illegally used their file compression scheme, by the time the issue 
was settled the company no longer was viable and in fact is no 
longer in existence.
    The next example is the competition between Microsoft and 
Netscape and how in a variety of actions which I am sure you are 
familiar made the company loose most of it's relevance in the PC 
arena, it still has a presence in the Linux arena, but that may 
change as well depending on how Microsoft handles that or is allowed 
to handle that arena in the future.
    The main problem I see is one of ethical behavior, they do push 
the limits and go beyond as in the Stacker case in every area that 
they see is important, and one may think that this is how business 
is done, the stronger survive. But when it is at the cost of 
innovation by individuals or small concerns, which Microsoft is 
eliminating more and more due to it's size and influence, I think 
that the American public and entrepreneurs have lost incredible 
opportunities due to what I consider predatory behavior.
    The level of excitement due to opportunities available to 
individuals in the 1980's was palpable across the whole Silicon 
Valley in which I worked at the time, as the 1990's approached this 
level of entrepreneurship decreased steadily.
    Some of it is due to the maturing of the industry, some of it 
due to standardization all of which are good. But much of it has to 
do with Microsoft getting involved in so many areas of the personal 
computer arena that it left less and less space for the smaller less 
financially endowed institutions to contribute to the progress of a 
field that still has wonderful opportunities if this level of 
entrepreneurship is allowed to flourish again.
    Unfortunately much of this has been squelched in the US, but 
with the arrival of Linux and what it can contribute and has 
contributed from many areas across the globe there is some activity 
in this entrepreneur-friendly environment that has received a lot of 
focus in the last couple of years.
    I would suggest that the American technologists would be much 
more interested in putting an effort again into the IT arena if a 
more favorable environment was fostered by curtailing some of the 
more obvious actions that Microsoft has taken, and I am sure that 
that venture capitalists would support this effort since the rewards 
are still very high.
    What I would suggest is to split the company into separate 
entities in all senses, applications and operating systems are two 
of the ones that have been suggested.
    And if Microsoft wants to enter a new arena in the computer 
industry (and that has to be based on a well-defined criteria) then 
the amount of money they can put in that concern cannot be more than 
the best financed institution that is already present in that arena. 
If none are in existence a criteria for that has to be established 
as well, so that other can compete on equal footing.
    Once that concern is established Microsoft cannot contribute any 
further funds, otherwise it would perpetually be competing in an 
arena even it's efforts were not successful, creating an artificial 
concern and hampering competitiveness.
    If the company failed they should not be permitted to enter that 
arena for a pre-

[[Page 29847]]

specified amount of time, to allow those who had good ideas to 
flourish without the annoyance of having another company 
artificially affecting the competitive environment to that specific 
arena.
    I understand that this may have a short-term (1-2 years) 
effect on the economy, but the long-term effects would be a healthy, 
creative, growing and dominating industry for the US.
    Tom Delmonte
    WorldCom--Revenue & Segment Reporting
    E-mail: [email protected]
    Voice: (719) 535-1562
    vnet: 622-1562



MTC-00032527

From: Michelle Alley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michelle Alley
27720 Riverwalk Way
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michelle Alley



MTC-00032528

From: Robert Nuzum
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Nuzum
2236 Gulf to Bay Blvd. #332
Clearwater, fl 33765
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Nuzum



MTC-00032529

From: Sam Heath
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
It is definitely time to put a stop to this nonsense about 
Microsoft!
Sam Heath
[email protected]



MTC-00032530

From: Pat Suter
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pat Suter
30 West Gibbons St.
Linden, NJ 07036-4052
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs

[[Page 29848]]

and now be able to focus their time and resources on matters of far 
greater national significance: the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair 
resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, 
Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not 
be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide 
new software and products. Software developers and Internet service 
providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented 
access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to 
make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Pat Suter



MTC-00032531

From: Thomas E. Strickland
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 10:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Putting this Reno farce behind us is long overdue.



MTC-00032532

From: Milton Becker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Milton Becker
335 Schooner Ave
Edgewater, Fl 32141
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Milton A Becker



MTC-00032533

From: Francis Johnson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I have tried to follow the Microsoft case as much as possible 
and I am appalled with the DoJ for settling that easily. the law 
states that Microsoft broke the law, why does the punishment not fit 
the crime. As an individual on the street I start drawing my own 
conclusions. Did Microsoft pay off somebody etc? When IBM was found 
guilty of monopoly, they were dealt with accordingly and they could 
not profit from their business.
    When Southwestern Bell (I forget what it was called) was a 
monopoly, it was dealt with too Why is the DoJ afraid of dealing 
with Microsoft. Wrong is wrong.
    The proposed settlement is an insult to the ``poor under 
privileged schools.'' I could understand if Microsoft offered 
to make all these schools top of the art with new technology/
hardware etc. But to offer outdated hardware/software!, all they are 
doing is using the schools as trash cans, because they have nowhere 
to put their junk. ``give it to them under privileged schools, 
they should be grateful'', and the worst part the DoJ accepted 
this. This is the United States for pete's sake. we are supposed to 
offer justice for all. Stop this atrocious settlement.
    I use Windows software on my pc and I appreciate the software, 
it is good and to most extent reliable and easy to use (if you know 
what you are doing). But I do not think that should get Microsoft 
special favors/treatment. DoJ act like a department of Justice and 
not like somebody's lacky.
    You read almost everyday that Microsoft is doing something bad 
here or there. This will continue until someone says ``The Buck 
Stops Here Microsoft, enough is enough''. A good example is a 
simple poll. They tried to rig a poll so that it looks like people 
want Microsoft, having people voting multiple times , how low can a 
company go to wipe out competition. Microsft cannot stand that 
people like something else other than Microsoft, they are now like 
dictator governments ``Its our way or noones''.
    DoJ clean up your act and do the right thing.
    THANK YOU
    FRANCIS
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00032534

From: EVAN LEE
To: microsoft.atr
Date: 1/10/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DOJ Anti-Trust Division:
    I am deeply troubled by the recent DOJ decision to settle the 
anti-trust case against

[[Page 29849]]

Microsoft. Guilty or not, Microsoft is the most dominating presence 
in the operating system and the software market today. For years 
they have bought out or pushed out competition not by superioriety 
of the software, but by money and lawyers.
    Microsoft does not promote fair competetion, their goal seem to 
be eliminate all competetion. Every new technology or company comes 
up with new and cheaper ways that benefits customers have been 
targed by Microsoft as enemies. I do not believe behaviors such as 
this will be curbed by this settlement, if anything else this gives 
Microsoft more confidence to destroy their competitors, because 
what's the worst that will happen? a slap on the hand to microsoft.
    What will this settlment accomplish? by making microsoft 
providing computers to poor schools in the country? How will this 
punish microsoft? All they have to do is buy in mass quantity 
refurbished computers which manufactures are gladly to get rid of. 
The software of course will be windows. This will not punish 
microsoft, instead it helps them breaking in to previously Mac 
dominated education market share. This settlement is not punishing 
Microsoft, it is helping them gaining publicity and market share.
    It is amazing to me that this cased started hard and heavy in 
the late 90s when microsoft had no presence in washington. but it 
ended with less of a whimper after microsoft dumped millions if not 
billions of dollars in to washington's political arena. I believe 
this is the wrong decision by the DOJ to settle with Microsoft, and 
their monopoly will only get worse... I fear the day that Microsoft 
conquers all.
    Evan Lee
    Disturbed Computer User



MTC-00032536

From: Marty French
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marty French
2300 Bristol Dr.
Carrollton, Tx 75006
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Marty French



MTC-00032537

From: Byron Major
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Attorney General John Ashcroft,
    I support the settlement of the Microsoft Suit. As a person who 
works in the computer industry, I would encourage this settlement.
    V/R Byron K. Major



MTC-00032538

From: Paul Hilliar
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorney' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Paul Hilliar
    2511 17th St. NW
    Washington, DC 20009-2801
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032539

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/10/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I don't believe the public is served when judicial oversite or 
legislation is made to stiffle companies that create technology to 
the degree that Microsoft has. The main reason we have this 
predicament in my opinion, is that ``weakened'' 
competitors like AOL, SUN Micro, et.al., and their legal teams 
purposly sought remedy through the courts as a viable competitive 
marketing tactic. Unfortunately for the consumer, these ``do-
gooders'' have influenced the justice system to prosecute 
Microsoft for being successful. The band-wagon effect in this is 
huge with lobyists, lawyers and those ``weakened'' 
competitors all reaping employment and huge sums of money. And then 
there is Microsoft, trying to exist by selling what we all agree are 
a great series of products addressing consumer preferences and 
providing what the market demands, and being punished for being 
successful at it. RTP.



MTC-00032540

From: Erick Gustafson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29850]]

Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Erick Gustafson
    910 Constitution Avenue, NE
    Washington, DC 20002-6202
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032541

From: Bob Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Bob Walker
    420 Seward Sq. SE
    Washington, DC 20003-1112
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032542

From: Ross Marzolf
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ross Marzolf
    419 19th Avenue E., #6
    Seattle, WA 98112-5344
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032543

From: Jennifer Hamann
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from. As you are well aware, members 
of Citizens for a Sound Economy have been unrelenting in our 
opposition to the federal government's antitrust case against 
Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself have called, 
emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice 
and to state attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's 
actions did not harm consumers, but provided them with great 
benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of 
software products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in 
the high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jennifer Hamann
    5891 1st Street, North
    Arlington, VA 22203-1101
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032544

From: Bud Thomas
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Bud Thomas
    6 Edward Dr
    Orchard Park, NY 14127-3957

[[Page 29851]]

    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032545

From: Rob Jordan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Rob Jordan
    1301 S. Monroe St.
    Arlington, VA 22204-4220
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032546

From: Andrew Smith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew Smith
    1953 Columbia Pike, Apt. 42
    Arlington, VA 22204-6149
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032547

From: Andrew McElroy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew McElroy
    710 N. Oakland St.
    Arlington, VA 22203-2223
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032548

From: John Baitinger, Sr.
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/10/02 2:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Baitinger, Sr.
P.O.Box 171
Alloway, NJ 08001-0171
January 10, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation. Competition means creating 
better goods and offering superior services to consumers. With 
government out of the business of stifling progress and tying the 
hands of corporations, consumers--rather than bureaucrats and 
judges--will once again pick the winners and losers on Wall 
Street. With the reins off the high-tech industry, more 
entrepreneurs will be encouraged to create new and competitive 
products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    John S. Baitinger, Sr.



MTC-00032549

From: stephen Flaherty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their

[[Page 29852]]

products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once again, I 
thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate lawsuit 
against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    stephen Flaherty
    801 South Pitt Street
    Alexandria, VA 22314-4369
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032550

From: Robert Pratt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 2:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Anit-Trust issue settlement
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Your support of the recent settlement of the long-running 
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state 
attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation is important.
    The settlement is fair and will allow Microsoft's competitors to 
use Microsoft's Window's operating system to incorporate their 
software programs and will give consumers more services and products 
to choose from.
    The opposition to the settlement from a small group of political 
bodies is nothing more than a power-grab and is not in the interest 
of the American tax payer.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Pratt
    PO Box 5282
    Lubbock, TX 79408-5282
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032551

From: Margaret Schlosser
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/10/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am non-plussed at the supposed ``remedy'' for 
Microsoft wrong-doing. The ``remedy'' is to enforce that 
Microsoft products are given even MORE exposure than previously?? 
This would give Microsoft an unfair advantage in the National School 
System.
    Microsoft is not, nor ever will be, remorseful in any way. 
Indeed, the same practices (proprietary) practiced previously, were 
practiced throughout the Anti-Trust process.
    By cloaking it's every pronouncement with ``for the good of 
the Consumers'' Microsoft sought to influence everyone that any 
judgement against Microsoft was anti-consumer and bad for consumers. 
With the huge market share enjoyed by Microsoft, it's even MORE 
incumbent upon them to play fair.
    This news indicates that Microsoft still seeks to impose it's 
standards over those of any other company by foul means, rather than 
fair.
    In December, Java was more popular than .Net for building Web 
services, according to a ZDNet UK poll, but weeks later the position 
had dramatically reversed; investigation revealed just what lengths 
Microsoft will go to to promote its products
    Microsoft's .Net Web services technology appeared to experience 
a sudden massive boost in popularity over its rival Java, according 
to a poll run by ZDNet UK.
    By 21 December, more than two-thirds of the respondents (69.5 
percent), said they planned to deliver some applications by Web 
services by the end of 2002, with a large majority of those (nearly 
half the total sample) planning to use Java. Only 21.5 percent said 
they planned to use Microsoft .Net--less than the figure (23.5 
percent) planning to use neither.
    But by the time the poll closed, on 5 January, the position had 
dramatically changed, with three quarters of voters claiming to be 
implementing .Net. This apparent sudden change of heart over the 
Christmas period appears to be the result of a concerted campaign 
within Microsoft.
    ZDNet UK logs reveal rather obvious vote rigging, and prove that 
it originated from within Microsoft:
    A very high percentage of voters are from within the 
microsoft.com domain.
    There is a very high incidence of people attempting to cast 
multiple votes, even though the poll script blocked out most 
attempts at multiple voting. The one that wins the prize made 228 
attempts to vote. This person was from within the microsoft.com 
domain.
    I submit that the following is as true today as it was in the 
beginning of the Anti-Trust case:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/07/opinion/07FRI1.html
    The brunt of the case against Microsoft entailed coercive 
behavior by the company to force Internet service providers and 
computer makers to favor Microsoft's browser over Netscape's. 
Competitors are now complaining of similar behavior by Microsoft to 
use its Windows monopoly to immunize its newer products from real 
competition. Just last week European Union antitrust regulators 
initiated an inquiry into these claims.
    In its announcement yesterday, the Justice Department appeared 
to acknowledge the urgent need for a change in Microsoft's conduct. 
In addition to calling for ``prompt, effective and certain 
relief for consumers,'' it said it would use a period of 
expedited discovery to ``investigate development in the 
industry since the trial concluded, and to evaluate whether 
additional conduct-related provisions are necessary.''
    Microsoft has a track record of showing little appreciation in 
its business dealings for the magnitude of the legal rulings against 
it. That is all the more reason for the government to remain on the 
case as the company aggressively seeks to become as dominant a 
platform for all Internet services as it currently is for PC 
software.
    There is much more evidence out there..the DOJ should make every 
effort to right wrongs in this case. Please don't short-cut this 
issue due to the war on Terrorism.
    M.Schlosser
    Bethany Beach, DE



MTC-00032552

From: Elizabeth Bookspan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Elizabeth Bookspan
    8620 114th Ave NE
    Kirkland, WA 98033-5719
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032553

From: Jason Hagglund
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the

[[Page 29853]]

high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jason Hagglund
    5907 N. Wall
    Spokane, WA 99205-6441
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032554

From: Betty Ramey
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Betty Ramey
    4760 NW 63rd Terrace
    Bell, FL 32619-3823
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032555

From: Harry Hintz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Harry Hintz
    5306 Overtop Lane
    Raleigh, NC 27613-5550
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032556

From: Sean Comery
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Sean Comery
    630 F St
    533
    San Diego, CA 92101-6310
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032557

From: David Palmer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David M. Palmer
    3515 Mill Creek Road
    The Dalles, OR 97058-1237
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032558

From: James Short
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been

[[Page 29854]]

unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's antitrust 
case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself 
have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Short
    8260 53rd Ave W. #305
    Mukilteo Wa., WA 98275-2672
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032559

From: Vivian and William Henderson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Vivian and William Henderson
    PO Box 2133
    5230 SE Sedgwick Rd
    Port Orchard, WA 98366-0769
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032560

From: Gerald Vinella
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running ntitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gerald Vinella
    1330 Noah Rd
    N. Brunswick, NJ 08902-1321
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032561

From: Leona Bochantin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 5:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leona Bochantin
5373 Butler Hill Estates Dr.
St Louis, Mo 63128-3721
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
Sincerely,
Leona Bochantin



MTC-00032562

From: Geri and Bob Modrell
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 6:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts

[[Page 29855]]

Windows operating system to incorporate their software programs and 
will give consumers more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Geri and Bob Modrell
    11014 19th Avenue SE PMB 59
    Everett, WA 98208-7600
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032563

From: Stephen Koehler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 6:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Koehler
2703 Sycamore Woods Ct
Louisville, KY 40241-6293
January 10, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen R. Koehler



MTC-00032564

From: Gary Evenson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Evenson
    6314 40th st nw
    Gig Harbor, WA 98335-7245
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032565

From: Peggy Venable
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 8:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. pOnce 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Peggy Venable
    13419 Wisterwood
    Austin, TX 78729-1941
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032566

From: Stony Rushing
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/10/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of

[[Page 29856]]

Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Stony Rushing
    3810 Belk Mill Rd
    Wingate, NC 28174-8760
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032567

From: Erthel Hines
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/10/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Erthel Hines
405 Meadowood Street
Greensboro, NC 27409
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Respectfully,
    Erthel Hines



MTC-00032568

From: Wes Alexander
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 2:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Wes Alexander
    5248 Manitu Ct
    Lilburn , GA 30047-5331
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032569

From: Charles L. Kaufman
To: attorney general
Date: 1/11/02 2:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello--
    I am writing because I believe that the deal arranged by the 
U.S. government and Microsoft is a BAD deal for all us consumers.
    Microsoft is a criminal company and is a danger to U.S commerce 
and the future of computing.
    I believe it would be in the best interest if Microsoft was 
broken up into different competing companies.
    F. Frank
    24200 Sw Yew Wood Ln
    Hillsboro, OR 97123



MTC-00032570

From: Bill Turenne
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 5:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.

[[Page 29857]]

    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Bill Turenne
    814 C Jefferson Street
    Alexandria, VA 22314-4255
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032571

From: Jennifer Garcia
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 5:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jennifer Garcia
    PO Box 1090
    Delray Beach, FL 33447-1090
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032572

From: Kenneth Sheffert
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 6:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Kenneth Sheffert
    24 Mill Rd
    Hampton, NH 03842-2237
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032573

From: Heath Heikkila
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 6:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Heath Heikkila
    1301 S Monroe St
    Arlington, VA 22204-4220
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032574

From: Danielle Doane
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Danielle Doane
    613 Constitution Ave, NE
    Washington, DC 20002-6035
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032575

From: tom luther
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in grudging support of the recent settlement of the 
long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Reno's 
abuse of the DoJ as a political tool should rightfully embarrass 
supporters of so called anti-trust legislation. It is impossibly 
broad and famous for the political process used to select victims. 
Microsoft is only the latest example of what is wrong with the DoJ, 
DC, and the anti-trust laws that cripple the economy. I am 
disappointed that some have decided to further pursue this baseless 
case. But I am certainly not surprised at their avarice, or their 
willingness to use bad law to line their pockets.
    The settlement makes a mockery of the DoJ and american justice 
in general. The ultimate irony of the ``settlement'' is 
that Microsoft has now secured a monopoly on public school children. 
Institutionalizing a

[[Page 29858]]

monopoly is a comic and fitting end to the litigation.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. But that wasn't 
the point.
    The point is that Microsoft now pays millions annually in homage 
to its (now acknowledged) master in DC. It doesn't pay to succeed 
too well in America. And it's particularly poor practice to not even 
pay lip service, much less direct graft, to the DC mob. Microsoft 
made all these mistakes.
    Once again, thank you for settling this unfortunate lawsuit. 
Good luck restoring your reputation.
    Respectfully,
    tom luther
    411 cutler street
    raleigh, NC 27603-1921
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032576

From: Michael Williams
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is going beyond fair to all except Microsoft. It 
will allow Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Window's 
operating system to incorporate their software programs and will 
give consumers more services and products to choose from.
    Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided them 
with great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the 
availability of software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the 
high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet. It's about time our government stop 
harrassing the producers in this country and go back to its one 
legitimate function: protecting our citizens and their property.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Williams
    6271 N Ponderosa Way
    Parker , CO 80134-5613
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032577

From: Chadwick Creamer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Chadwick Creamer
    19812 10th PL W
    Lynnwood, WA 98036-7101
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032578

From: Thomas and Marybeth Hauck
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 9:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    We are writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though we applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, we are thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
ourselves have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the 
U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas and Marybeth Hauck
    605 Fearrington Post
    Pittsboro,, NC 27312-8523
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032579

From: Richard Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 9:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Walker
    7444 Shadowwood CT NE
    Keizer, OR 97303-7853
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032580

From: Tearle Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Tearle Lee
5410 Stillwater Dr
New Orleans, LA 70128
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 29859]]

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Tearle Lee



MTC-00032581

From: Marcia Stevenson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marcia Stevenson
94 Midway Dr.
McKees Rocks, PA 15136-1556
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Marcia L. Stevenson



MTC-00032582

From: Mark Potter
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I urge you to settle this unfortunate lawsuit 
against a successful and innovative company. While states seek to 
erase their budget deficits through suing Microsoft, the economy 
suffers and more people are laid off from work.
    Respectfully,
    Mark Potter
    3309-B Parkford Manor Terrace
    Silver Spring, MD 20904-6145
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032583

From: Denny DeVries
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/11/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29860]]

Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Denny DeVries
    603 Juanita Ct
    Lady Lake, FL 32159-9268
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032584

From: Judith Murray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judith Murray
1736 Marlyn Rd
Fort Myers, FL 33901
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Judith Murray



MTC-00032585

From: Herbert Stevenson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/11/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert Stevenson
602. Fifth Street
Kirkland, WA 98033
January 11, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Herbert L. Stevenson



MTC-00032586

From: Vin Mulhern
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/12/02 6:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vin Mulhern
15 Nelson Street
Farmingdale, NY 11735-4225
January 12, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

[[Page 29861]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Vin Mulhern



MTC-00032587

From: A Colon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/12/02 10:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A Colon
12441 NW 15th Street #307
Sunrise, Fl 33323
January 12, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    A Colon



MTC-00032588

From: Dennis Kleindorfer
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/13/02 2:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    It is my opinion that most of charges against Microsoft are very 
minor and are the type of things companies do to grow there business 
if there competitors can't compete they whine and sue if things 
worked that way Studebaker would still be in business if they were 
protected like Apple Computer in the Education Market!
    But the bottom line is certain states and individuals drum up 
these charges so they can as Robinhood rob the rich!
    There would be no such suits if Microsoft didn't have billions 
in cash! And companies do to weak products or bad management are 
protected by the goverment cry to the goverment that they need 
protection and money from there more sophisticated competitor 
Microsoft!
    Sincerely,
    Dennis Kleindorfer
    601 East New york Ave.
    DeLand, FL 32724-6042



MTC-00032589

From: jjderrig
To: Renata B. Hesse
Date: 1/13/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected]
Fax: (202) 307-1454 --OR-- (202) 616-9937
To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
    I have always believed anti-trust laws were primarily to protect 
the consumer. As a consumer, I have not been hurt at all. Most of 
the problems mentioned in the press during this litigation, I have 
personally solved with little difficulty. I have never heard of the 
name of the consumer who has been harmed.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the 
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for 
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they 
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More 
extreme critics complain that the remedies do not address products 
that were not even part of the case.

[[Page 29862]]

    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also 
rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an order moving 
forward would be difficult to sustain given the court 
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's 
liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of 
Justice claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    John F. Derrig
    301--128th AVE NE
    Bellevue, WA. 98005-3222
    425-454-7035



MTC-00032590

From: Margaret Schlosser
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/13/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft attempts to affect the trial
    Having just become aware of the email message by which Microsoft 
hopes to sway the Department of Justice--via the public comment 
period, I certainly hope that anyone analyzing the public comments 
takes this underhanded activity into account.
    For several months, I have been subscribed to (spying upon?) a 
mailing list called ``Freedom to Innovate''. The name of 
the list is particularly amusing since the purpose of the mailing 
list is to promote the position of Microsoft in various anti-trust 
motions in our courts.
    I have copied today's ``Freedom to Innovate'' message 
below. Aside from its humorous aspect, it includes information about 
how to submit public comment to the Department of Justice. So, if 
you have opinions on how Microsoft has affected your ``freedom 
to innovate'', you may wish to correspond with the Justice 
department on the topic.
    -- joe
    -=-=-=- Microsoft message follows -=-=-=-
    A FINFlash Alert: The DOJ wants to hear from YOU!
    For nearly four years, your voice has been instrumental in the 
debate over the freedom to innovate. Tens of thousands of concerned 
citizens have communicated to their public officials about whether 
the Microsoft case should be settled or further litigated. Despite 
the aggressive lobbying efforts of a few of Microsofts competitors, 
the federal government and nine states finally reached a 
comprehensive agreement with Microsoft to address the reduced 
liability found in the Court of Appeals ruling. This settlement is 
tough, but reasonable and fair to all parties involved. Consumers 
overwhelmingly agree that settlement is good for them, the industry 
and the American economy.
    However, this settlement is not guaranteed, and your voice is 
more important than ever.
    The law (officially called the Tunney Act) requires a public 
comment period between now and January 28th after which the District 
Court will determine whether the settlement is in the public 
interest.
    Unfortunately, a few special interests are attempting to use 
this review period to derail the settlement and prolong this 
litigation even in the midst of uncertain economic times. The last 
thing the American economy needs is more litigation that benefits 
only a few wealthy competitors and stifles innovation.
    Dont let these special interests defeat the public interest.
    -=-=-= End Microsoft message -=-=-=
    This is but a small sample of the unsavory practices Microsoft 
employs. If the proposed settlement takes place, Microsoft will have 
won and at the same time solidified it's position and be well on the 
way to it's goal of complete domination of anything having to do 
with computers or the Internet. Please do not let this settlement be 
for nothing, which it will if it proceeds as now projected. Should 
the DOJ in the future, find that the presently proposed settlement 
did more harm than good (as I am firmly convinced it will) it will 
be far too late for any rememdy and future anti-trust actions will 
have been forever compromised. The Microsoft 'model'' will 
encourage other companies to follow their lead and so escape any 
``punishment'.
    Just one question--I wish someone could explain to me just 
WHAT so-called 'innovations'' Microsoft has ever been 
responsible for? Microsoft merely adapts others work and proceeds to 
make it Microsoft specific, thereby denying use of it to others by 
attempting to make its version the defacto default.
    Margaret Schlosser
    Bethany Beach, Delaware



MTC-00032591

From: Ned and Suzy Cheely
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/13/02 3:33pm
Subject: Micorsoft Settlement
    Please settle this case and get onto more serious problems! We, 
the taxpayers, through the government, have spent enough time and 
money on this case. It is time to move on. Please support the 
settlement as proposed by Microsoft and the Bush Administration. We 
do.
    Thank you.
    Suzy Cheely
    9 Harrop Parrish
    Williamsburg, VA 23188



MTC-00032592

From: Robert Smith Jr.
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/13/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by

[[Page 29863]]

lowering the cost and increasing the availability of software 
products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that their products increased our familiarity 
with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Smith Jr.
    215 Rouen Ct.
    Wilmington, NC 28412-3391
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032593

From: Lois McMahan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/13/02 7:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Lois McMahan
    12001 SE Roper Lane
    Olalla, WA 98359-9708
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032594

From: Courtney Phillips
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/13/02 8:32pm
Subject'' Microsoft Settlement
61 Lynn Court
North Brunswick, NJ 08902
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Early in last November, the Department of Justice and the 
Microsoft Corporation came to an agreement in the three-year-old 
antitrust lawsuit. I believe that the terms of the settlement are 
reasonable, and I am therefore lending my support to the agreement 
that puts an end to this lengthy and extremely costly litigation.
    Microsoft did not get just a slap on the wrist, as evidenced by 
the fact, that the company has been forced to turn over substantial 
portions of its intellectual property to its competitors. Microsoft 
will share with its competitors, information about how Windows 
interacts with other programs and will not retaliate against vendors 
who sell or use non-Microsoft products. Furthermore, as part of the 
settlement, Microsoft will be supervised by a technical committee, 
consisting of three software engineers who will test Microsoft's 
compliance with certain aspects of the agreement.
    I understand also, that other terms were agreed upon that were 
never even an issue in the antitrust lawsuit. Microsoft, however, 
accepted those terms based on the view that the United States 
economy is far more important than pursuing arguments over less 
significant details.
    I completely support the settlement, and would like to go on 
record as doing so.
    Sincerely,
    Courtney G. Phillips



MTC-00032595

From: Stephen Flaherty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    stephen Flaherty
    801 South Pitt Street
    Alexandria, VA 22314-4369
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032596

From: Vhon Montefrio
To: Judge Kollar Kotelly
Date: 1/14/02 6:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hi Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    Good day to you Judge!
    I am sending you this email to comment something with regards to 
the controversial Tunney Act in which passed by the US Congress. 
This is particularly the Microsoft monopoly issue.
    My name is Mr. Andrebon G. Montefrio, Jr., from Philippines. I 
heard that you are the Independent Judge who will review and approve 
the Justice Departments proposed agreement.
    I believe as a consumer of a product, it is important to have at 
least two or more options to choose of what to buy or consume. For 
example, a consumer wanted to buy a car, choosing between five 
different cars would help him arrive at his decision more handily. 
As for me, if I wanted to purchase a Computer System, I should have 
many choices of brands or models before I will buy it. Of course it 
depends on my budget, preferences, system performance and other 
factors.
    With Microsofts case, I think a lot of many software companies 
were hurt by it. Microsoft has been into monopoly since the start. 
And it became more obvious now. With the current OS, which is 
Windows XP, software applications embedded with it made the other 
software manufacturers life gloomy. With its many features such as 
the Media Player, Internet Browser, Utilities, and many more, 
competition with other companies is never that stiff. What happens 
now to Netscape? How about the other software makers? All will 
eventually close down. And who is in the losing end? Not just the 
other software companies but also the consumers as well. Consumers 
will not be able to try and test alternative software or even 
Operating Systems. Other technologies will not be available in the 
market because no one will try them anymore. What for? Windows XP 
has it all already. Much more, PC companies would be using the new 
Microsoft OS for sales growth. So the more PCs will be purchased, 
the more the Microsoft users there will be. The more the monopoly 
there will be.
    What I am trying to say is, Microsoft should play the field 
fairly. Give other companies the chance to play the field and for 
the consumers to have the opportunity to try other options. The more 
they become bigger, the less the competition there is.
    Thank you for your time. I hope I have clearly stated my point 
here. Please review carefully the agreement before signing it.
    More power to you!
    Cheers,
    Andrebon G. Montefrio, Jr.



MTC-00032597

From: Judith Mulcahy

[[Page 29864]]

To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 8:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Judith Mulcahy
    9613 Candish Court
    Fairfax Station, VA 22039-3235
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032598

From: Jim Robertson
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/14/02 10:59am
Subject: FW: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
    I received the following email message. I am only writing to see 
if it is a legitimate use of my time (or the people I forward this 
to) or is it a hoax? Is the DOJ seeking public comment? I receive so 
many ``form/chain'' letter via email, I never know what to 
believe anymore.
    Thanks for you time.
    Jim Robertson
    Olympia, Washington
From: Marsha Richards [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Encourage DOJ to settle Microsoft case
    Dear EFF Friends,
    As you know, 18 states and the federal Department of Justice 
(DOJ) have been involved in a lawsuit against Microsoft. Recently, 
the DOJ announced it has negotiated a settlement agreement with the 
company (one of America's most successful). The settlement must be 
approved by the federal judge in the case before it can take effect, 
and the DOJ is currently seeking public comment.
    The case against Microsoft has greatly harmed Washington 
citizens. Stock values, not only in Microsoft but in the entire 
NASDAQ, have dropped dramatically and consumers overwhelmingly agree 
that allowing the case to end with this settlement is good for them, 
the industry, and the nation's economy.
    Please consider sending a letter, fax or email to the DOJ to let 
them know what you think about the settlement. The deadline for 
comment is January 28, 2002. I'm including a sample letter below 
along with the contact information you'll need. Please feel free to 
edit it as you see fit, or write your own.
    I would recommend sending your comments by email or fax since 
mail has had difficulties lately. Also, if possible, would you let 
us know if you decide to send a letter? We'd like to measure the 
impact. Thanks very much.
    Cordially,
    Bob Williams
    President
    Evergreen Freedom Foundation
    P.O. Box 552
    Olympia, WA 98507
    (360) 956-3482
    [email protected]
[Contact Information]
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 ``D'' Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
email: [email protected] Fax: (202) 307-1454 
--OR-- (202) 616-9937
[Sample Letter]
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a citizen of Washington state, I encourage you to accept the 
proposed settlement in the anti-trust case involving Microsoft.
    This settlement is appropriate and reflects a triumph of the 
rule of law. Certain Microsoft competitors and other critics of the 
proposed settlement make the core of their objections a call for 
more stringent restrictions, ranging from prohibition of what they 
call ``product tying'' to breakup of the company. More 
extreme critics complain that the remedies do not address products 
that were not even part of the case.
    These objections ignore the decision of the Appeals Court that 
reversed much of Judge Jackson's original findings. The Appeals 
Court threw out findings on many fronts related to Microsoft's anti-
monopolistic behavior. One key area rejected was the basis used for 
claiming that integrating Internet Explorer and Windows represented 
monopoly abuse. The court went further to state that any new burden 
of proof for ``tying'' would be immense. The court also 
rejected the breakup order and made it clear such an order moving 
forward would be difficult to sustain given the court 
``drastically altered [i.e., reduced] the scope of Microsoft's 
liability.''
    One final objection raised by critics is that Microsoft has a 
past history of consent decree violation so the company cannot be 
trusted to adhere to a new decree. This is a patently false 
assertion. The Appeals Court in June of 1998 rejected the very claim 
that sent the parties into litigation--the Department of 
Justice claim that Microsoft had violated an earlier consent decree. 
Furthermore, this settlement takes the extraordinary step of 
creating an onsite oversight body. There are, therefore, no 
legitimate grounds for an assertion that a consent decree will not 
constrain Microsoft's behavior in the ways the court intends.
    Rather, the proposed settlement directly and concretely 
addresses each and every key finding upheld by the Appeals Court, 
and does so with an undeniably stringent remedy. The areas of 
violation addressed include requiring OEMs to preserve visible 
access to Internet Explorer, to preserve the original boot sequence, 
to preserve all Microsoft-supplied desktop icons; entering into 
exclusive contracts with Internet Access Providers; threatening 
companies over support for other middleware technologies; and every 
other key area identified by the Appeals Court.
    In my view, there can be no valid objection to this settlement 
because every major finding of the Appeals Court is stringently 
addressed with a targeted remedy that specifically prohibits and 
prevents the behavior in question. Acceptance of the proposed 
settlement will send a signal throughout American industry and the 
country as a whole that in the United States rule of law is alive 
and well--that defendants face remedies only for those findings 
against them. Anything beyond this settlement would represent a 
victory for those who do not seek remedy but rather also unwarranted 
punishment, and this would be a serious blow to the smooth 
functioning of free markets and the law that protects them. 
Participants in the American economy would forever be forced to fear 
whether the laws they rely upon to safely conduct business will be 
applied fairly.
    I believe in advancing free market competition and this 
settlement serves the best interests of the American public. It 
fairly resolves a complex and burdensome anti-trust case that is 
having severe impacts far beyond one company, a case that is acting 
as a drag on one of the most vibrant sectors of our economy. 
Settlement of this case will free the high-technology industry to 
put its fullest efforts into innovation and creativity, and will 
spur competition in a way that will directly benefit consumers.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,



MTC-00032599

From: Charlotte Worden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/14/02 11:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlotte Worden
1821 2nd St
Lewiston, ID 83501
January 14, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S.

[[Page 29865]]

v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow 
taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charlotte Worden



MTC-00032600

From: Joseph Guthrie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Guthrie
    4 Grace Way
    Hampstead, NH 03841-2245
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032601

From: charles burkart
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    charles burkart
    2565 mineral street
    dubuque, IA 52001-5642
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032602

From: b.l.rosenberg
To: Dept of Justice
Date: 1/14/02 12:30pm
Subject: Material relevant to DOJ Antitrust Suit Against Microsoft
Monday, January 14, 2002
    Dear Department of Justice,
    The following email describing a restriction of browser choice 
by AT&T Worldnet forcing Microsoft's browser on its customers 
was sent to AT&T today, Monday, January 14, 2002. It is further 
evidence of Microsoft's pervasive and dominating influence on the PC 
that kills competition and impoverishes consumer choices.
    Please do something to restrict Microsoft's monopoly.
    Thank You
    Bruce L. Rosenberg
    Here is the letter:
Monday, January 14, 2002
Jerry G., AT&T Support Person,
I find AT&T's answer to the following question quite 
unsatisfactory.
`` Question:
    Why does my browser automatically launch when I connect even 
though I disabled that feature? How do I stop it?
    Answer:
    At this time, there is no way to disable this feature.''
    This ``feature'' could be a bug (a programming 
oversight), because there is/was a check box in the options/advanced 
to uncheck ``Launch Internet Explorer''. Checking or 
unchecking this box no longer has any effect. Microsoft Internet 
Explorer launches whether you want it or not!! Gates rules!!!
    This ``feature'' could also have been implemented due 
to the fact that Microsoft now has such power over the once mighty 
AT&T that they must bow before them and do their bidding. I 
believe that Congress and the Justice Department should be made 
aware of this situation since it is relevant to the anti-monopoly 
case against Microsoft. It could be considered a restriction of 
browser choice by AT&T forcing Microsoft's browser on its 
customers.
    In any event, one hopes that this ``feature'' will 
soon be ``updated'' with an improvement which will once 
again allow AT&T Worldnet ISP customers to chose -not- to launch 
Microsoft Internet Explorer once the connection is made.
    Is such an update in the works? If so, when I might expect to 
receive it?

[[Page 29866]]

    Is there any way for me to go back to my previous version of 
Worldnet software?
    I feel that I should receive free internet service until this 
``feature'' is corrected.
    Please respond ASAP. Thanks.
    Very sincerely,
    Bruce L. Rosenberg
    [email protected] wrote:
    Dear Bruce ,
    I received your email concerning our Auto Update. The main 
objective for this update is to remove the on-screen toolbar that is 
part of your price plan. There are other changes as well:
    Addition of a prompt that tells you that you have been idle for 
25 minutes
    Auto-start of your browser software
    A bug fix to support 10-digit dialing.
    After you select ``yes'' to this update, just follow 
the prompts you see on your screen. The update will not be applied 
immediately, but only after you re-start your computer.
    I have provided answers below to other questions we're getting 
about this change. I apologize for any inconvenience this change has 
caused.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry G.
    Question:
    Why does my browser automatically launch when I connect even 
though I disabled that feature? How do I stop it?
    Answer:
    At this time, there is no way to disable this feature.
    Question: Every time I sign on, I get the Auto Update. How do I 
stop it?
    Answer:
    The auto update doesn't install itself until you re-start your 
computer. If you do not re-start, you will be prompted each time you 
log on. If you choose not to install the Auto Update by saying 
``no'' when asked, you will be prompted again the next 
time you log on.
    ----- Bruce Wrote -----
    formID: 10
    Category: Web browsers
    First--Name: Bruce
    Last--Name: Rosenberg
    Computer--Type: Desktop computer
    OS: Microsoft Windows 98
    Browser: Netscape Communicator
    Error--Message: no error message
    Question: Dear AT&T Worldnet Representative,
    After ``updating'' my AT&T Worldnet ISP connection 
software yesterday (1/7/02), Microsoft Internet Explorer launches 
even though it is unchecked on the Options/Advanced window. I am a 
Netscape 4.79 user. Netscape still launches, but Internet Explorer 
launches first.
    I want to know how to stop MS Internet Explorer from launching.
    If you cannot help me, I will be forced to find a new ISP, since 
I abhor the loss of my choices due to Microsoft's monopoly on the 
PC. I refuse to be forced to use Internet Explorer by my Internet 
Service Provider, which is apparently what AT&T have done with 
this latest Worldnet ``update''. This update was certainly 
not an upgrade, it was not obvious to me that any speedup or other 
improvements occurred after my updating.
    All I received in response to the above was an automated 
response telling me about the plan switch-over, where the 7/7 or 
whatever was switched-over to a different plan. I never had the 
cheap plan with enforced advertising. I had and still have the more 
expensive plan, $15/150hours, so I should not have had to update my 
Worldnet AT&T software. I am angry at having to deselect 
Internet Explorer each time I get online so I can use Netscape 4.79.
    I have emailed my complaint letter to everyone on my mailing 
list to broadcast my dissatisfaction with Worldnet ISP.
    Thank You,
    Bruce L. Rosenberg, no longer a satisfied customer of AT&T 
Worldnet!!



MTC-00032603

From: Charles Ehrenpreis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 12:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charles Ehrenpreis
    195 Federal Hill Road
    Milford, NH 03055-3519
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032604

From: J.K. Weston
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/14/02 2:19pm
Subject: (Bill Rice) Windows XP Licensing
    Dear Mr. Rice:
    First off, thank you for your feedback. Microsoft is strongly 
committed to your satisfaction and we would like to take this 
opportunity to address your concerns regarding the licensing of 
Windows XP.
    Your first concern is that you were unable to find any 
information on installing Windows XP, on more than one computer, on 
the Windows XP box itself or in a number of other locations. We 
apologize if this information was not easy to locate. We did include 
information about this on the back of the Windows XP 
box--towards the bottom, under the word 
``Experience''. The text states: ``For installation 
and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license 
terms)''. It is further described in the first section of the 
End User License Agreement (EULA) which must be accepted during the 
Windows XP installation process. For a detailed description of this 
on the Microsoft website, please refer to: http://www.microsoft.com 
/WINDOWSXP/home/evaluation /overviews/activation.
    asp
    
    Windows XP licensing information was also included in product 
reviews done by journalists from many independent magazines and 
newspapers such as PC World, PC Computing, and ZDNet.com. The 
``one PC per license'' concept has been in the Windows 
EULA for over ten years and is a condition of almost all products 
produced by commercial software makers. Nothing about this portion 
of the Windows license agreement changed with Windows XP.
    You mentioned that you would like to put Windows XP on two 
computers for your children but that it would be cost prohibitive at 
over $500. You may have been previously provided with some incorrect 
pricing information. The Windows XP Home Edition Upgrade currently 
retails for around $99 per license. At this retail cost, your 
children's two computers could benefit from Windows XP at just $198. 
Home users with more than one computer in the household may also 
qualify for a reduced upgrade price of $84.50 per license; in your 
case a total of $169. You can take advantage of this offer by 
calling Microsoft at 1-888-571-2048 (Press 
``0'' when the call connects to speak to a customer 
service representative directly).
    We value you as a Windows XP customer, however if you are not 
happy with the terms of the licensing agreement you are free to 
return the product.
    While you are under no obligation to use Windows XP as the 
primary platform for your personal computers, we hope that you'll 
consider using the product.
    Thank you for providing Microsoft with this opportunity to 
address your concerns.
    Sincerely,
    J.K. Weston
    Microsoft Corporation
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bill Rice [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:46 PM
    To: Bill Gates
    Cc: [email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; 
[email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]
    Subject: windows xp
    Dear Mr. Gates
    I am a long time Microsoft supporter....have bought almost every

[[Page 29867]]

upgrade version of Windows, Office, FrontPage...etc !!!!
    .....I work on as laptop and have a desktop for home, a laptop 
for my wife, and two desktops for my 2 children.
    I recently purchased the latest version of everything 
available...spending over $750 before the holidays...
    ...I have been buying Microsoft products for years.....
    I am ABSOLUTELY APPALLED that the XP operating system requires 
that I purchase an additional license, for hundreds of dollars, for 
every PC in my house.....(this is not obvious on the purchased 
product, from the retail salesperson, on the Microsoft website, or 
in any advertisement...I looked! I didn't have my bi-focals and 
couldn't read the VERY SMALLEST PRINT)
    I have always supported Microsoft...and have not supported the 
federal and state lawsuits......
    BUT.....I FEEL ROBBED...no salesman warned me that, unlike all 
previous versions....I would have to buy separate, EXPENSIVE 
licenses for each computer in my home...(I buy a VCR tape...and use 
it in all my VCRs....)....
    ...so I am sad to say that tonight I am writing to Judge Kollar-
Kotally as well as to all of the states attorneys general.... To 
convey my personal experience...that Microsoft is not playing fair 
with its market advantage....UNTIL TONIGHT, I WAS AN ARDENT 
MICROSOFT SUPPORTER.....THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION ON THE XP BOX 
THAT THE UPGRADE WILL ONLY WORK ON ONE COMPUTER......I feel misled 
and disappointed.....my children use XP at school and I wanted to 
use the same operating system at home for projects and 
homework...but to put the operating system on their PCs costs over 
$500 and there is no alternative operating system platform......
    I think the uniformity of platform created by a broadly 
successful Microsoft has helped propel significant increases in our 
national productivity. I now believe that Microsoft is taking 
advantage of the ``little guy,'' and that this pricing 
scheme may reflect a portion of what others in the technology 
industry have been complaining about. I didn't understand or 
appreciate the problem until tonight.
    Thanks for taking the time to review these comments.
    Bill Rice
    CC:Microsoft ATR,microsoftcomments 
@doj.ca.gov@inetgw,...



MTC-00032605

From: Russell Porter
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Russell Porter
    7120 Oliver Smith Drive
    Urbandale, IA 50322-3218
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032606

From: Robert Harned
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Harned
    113 S. Franklin
    Ames, IA 50014-7512
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032607

From: wilbert skinn
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    wilbert skinn
    516 n frederick ave
    oelwein, IA 50662-1244
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032608

From: Clifford Jantz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 3:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been

[[Page 29868]]

unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's antitrust 
case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself 
have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Clifford Jantz
    1506 Alderwood Drive Southwest
    Altoona, IA 50009-2406
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032609

From: Jaclyn Fleming
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jaclyn Fleming
    6046 Terrace Drive
    Johnston,, IA 50131-1561
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032610

From: Edward Jonson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 5:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing to support the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. I applaud the 
nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case. However, I'm thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to continue to pursue this baseless case.
    I consider the settlement fair to all, because it allows 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and gives consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in their opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, we've called, 
emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice 
and to state attorneys, general offices explaining that Microsoft's 
actions did not harm consumers, but provided them with great 
benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of 
software products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in 
the high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Edward Jonson
    16 Hawkview Road
    Hudson, NH 03051-4408
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032611

From: Donald Johnson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Donald Johnson
    M-5 Snow Circle
    Nashua, NH 03062-2902
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032612

From: Dennis Behrens
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Dennis Behrens
    921 Lewis Blvd
    Sioux City, IA 51105-3254
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032613

From: OSCAR DAVIDS
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/14/02 9:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining

[[Page 29869]]

state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have decided to 
further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    OSCAR DAVIDS
    3753 250TH AVE
    KEOKUK, IA 52632-9737
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032614

From: Alan Lasnover
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/14/02 11:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan Lasnover
19951 Elfin Forest Lane
Elfin Forest, CA 92029
January 15, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors' 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Alan L. Lasnover, M.D.



MTC-00032615

From: Preston Lawrance
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Preston Lawrance
    20 Rowell Street
    P.O. Box 3133
    Manchester, NH 03104-2229
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032616

From: Kurt Wuelper
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Kurt Wuelper
    HC 74 Box 42
    Center Strafford, NH 03815-9709
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032617

From: Wendy Speckerman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29870]]

Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys' general (including my 
own attorney general, Tom Miller of Iowa) and the District of 
Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided them 
with great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the 
availability of software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the 
high-technology market and their products increased my productivty 
and my familiarity with the Internet.
    At this time of recession, the settlement will allow Microsoft 
to again focus on innovations that, along with others in the 
technology sector, will lead the US into another time of economic 
expansion. Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Wendy Speckerman
    7820 Beaver Hills Ln
    Cedar Falls, IA 50613-9302
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032618

From: Jane MacFarland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys' general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jane MacFarland
    11411 Long Pine Dr.
    Houston, TX 77077-4216
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032619

From: monty fowler
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys' general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    monty fowler
    2718 martin st
    pasadena, TX 77502-5725
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032620

From: Suzanne Dodge
To: U.S. Attorney General
Date: 1/15/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
KEITH D. DODGE & SUZANNE S. DODGE
125 RAINBOW DRIVE, #2507
LIVINGSTON, TEXAS 77399-1025
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Like many people in Texas, I am happy that a settlement 
agreement has been reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. The suit has taken a toll on the IT industry and on 
consumers of technology products. The settlement agreement is fair 
to all the parties in the case and is the result of years of 
expensive litigation. Information sharing and non-retaliation 
agreements should be enough to satisfy even Microsoft's harshest 
critics. Unfortunately, opponents of Microsoft would like to see the 
lawsuit continue and even be reopened for further action. Three 
years of litigation have already disturbed the IT industry and the 
economy too much. Reopening the suit and continuing litigation will 
only serve to harm the IT industry and the economy.
    Now is the time to end the suit and move on. Surely, the 
Department of Justice has more important issues to deal with and 
Microsoft needs to move on as well. I hope that the settlement is 
finalized as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Suzanne Dodge



MTC-00032621

From: Edwina Houlmiere
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/15/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    We think that it would be in the best interest of the American 
economy to settle the Microsoft case and get on with life.
    Edwina and Patrick Houlmiere



MTC-00032622

From: Jeanine Leone
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/15/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The Microsoft case should be settled with no further litigation.
    Jeanine Leone



MTC-00032623

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/15/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
    As a retired teacher and substitute teacher, I thought your 
offer was great!!! I was and still am an avid user of the computer. 
It is an outstanding learning tool for students. The government was 
really shortsighted on the greatness of this offer. This is really 
too bad. Keep up the good work on the products you are developing 
for us!
    Marilynn M Russell
    ps I taught at Clover Park High school where Bill & Melinda 
have given money to help students. My grandson is now at that school 
as a 9th grader taking advantage of their wonderful gift. THANKS!!!! 
Part of his project that he is doing for math, computers, history is 
to prepare a PowerPoint presentation (with digital pictures too) to 
culminate his work. Neat huh!!!!



MTC-00032624

From: William Denmark
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Please be informed, I am writing in support of the recent 
settlement of the antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case,

[[Page 29871]]

I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general 
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this 
baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    William Denmark
    4020 Saxon Drive
    NSB, FL 32169-3849
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032625

From: Anne Mulhern
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Anne Mulhern
    7526 N. NC Hwy. 49
    Mebane, NC 27302-7518
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032626

From: Denny DeVries
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Denny DeVries
    603 Juanita Ct
    Lady Lake, FL 32159-9268
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032627

From: DONALD QUINN
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    DONALD QUINN
    119 APPALOOSA LANE
    ORMOND BEACH, FL 32174-8003
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032628

From: Donna Brooks
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Donna Brooks
    2538 Spence Dr. NE
    Palm Bay, FL 32905-2526
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032629

From: Holly Derenthal
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese

[[Page 29872]]

Date: 1/15/02 12:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Holly Derenthal
    2019 Elizabeth Avenue
    Orlando, FL 32804-5439
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032630

From: Eve Kantner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Eve Kantner
    12209 Freemont Lane
    Raleigh, NC 27613-5631
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032631

From: Francis Kendrick
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. I 
believe that further litigation in this case will be 
counterproductive for the principals, the economy, and consumers.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Francis Kendrick
    1251 Paradise Way
    Venice, FL 34292-1412
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032632

From: James Schaer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James M.(Mike) Schaer
    James Schaer
    1570 Maple Ave.;P.O.Box 744
    North Bend, OR 97459-0059
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032633

From: Joshua Menold
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the

[[Page 29873]]

high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joshua Menold
    210 W. Dupree #14
    Angier, NC 27501-8830
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032634

From: Barbara Wilt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Barbara Wilt
    1671- 40th Street
    West Palm Beach, FL 33407-3641
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032635

From: Gary Cross
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Cross
    2602 Costa Mesa Drive
    Dallas, TX 75228-2036
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032636

From: Keith Hosford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Keith Hosford
    13310 Myrna Lane
    Houston, TX 77015-1336
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032637

From: James Hussmann
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Hussmann
    307 Wexford Terrace
    Venice, FL 34293-4287
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032638

From: James King
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been

[[Page 29874]]

unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's antitrust 
case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself 
have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James King
    2017 Riverknoll Court-
    West Linn, OR 97068-3637
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032639

From: Charles Lipford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charles Lipford
    561 Maitland Ave.
    Altamonte Springs, FL 32701-6322
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032640

From: Marie Sanders
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 1:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    It is my opinion that this lawsuit has a lot to do with our 
economic turndown today and has caused severe damage to our economy
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Marie Sanders
    14603 Claycroft Ct
    Cypress, TX 77429-1889
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032641

From: Robert Reed
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Reed
    3717 Brandy St
    Orlando, FL 32812-5124
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032642

From: Alexander Beckman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Alexander Beckman
    313 Appledore Ct.
    Winston-Salem, NC 27103-6022
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032643

From: Willson Folmar
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft

[[Page 29875]]

Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that 
decided to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case, 
I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general 
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this 
baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Willson Folmar
    2016 Lebron Ave
    Montgomery, AL 36106-1833
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032644

From: Hubert Owens
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Hubert Owens
    228 Mooney Road
    Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547-1374
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032645

From: David and Joanna Hargis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing to you as one of my last acts an an Oregon Citizen 
in support of the recent settlement of the long-running antitrust 
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys 
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state 
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's 
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that 
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have 
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet and until 
now, in this depressed economy, have brought jobs to our family and 
taxes to you. Well no more. The jobs have vanished and we are 
leaving the pacific northwest for more prosperous regions of the 
country where people implement sound economic change and jobs are 
more plentiful.
    In conjunction with my support of the Microsoft settlement, I 
support big business. I don't want unemployment! I want a job! And 
I'd like to see the legislators do their job and quit worrying about 
the next election and stalling valuable legislation. We aren't so 
dumb that we don't understand what is happening. I will vote against 
anyone who stalls the economic recovery that is for certain.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David and Joanna Hargis
    595 Joseph Street SE
    Salem, OR 97302-3972
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032646

From: Matt Niemi
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Matt Niemi
    1250 H St. NW #700
    Washington, DC 20005-3952
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032647

From: Gus Beall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state

[[Page 29876]]

attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's actions 
did not harm consumers, but provided them with great benefits by 
lowering the cost and increasing the availability of software 
products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that their products increased our familiarity 
with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gus Beall
    1140 NE Ross Road
    Bend, OR 97701-8584
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032648

From: Clyde Garland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I appaud the recent settlement the antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft. The settlement is more than fair to the plantiffs 
considering that there was no bases for the lawsuit in the first 
place.
    Members, like me, of Citizens for a Sound Economy have been 
opposiing this lawsuit with calls, emails, visits and letters to 
almost three years. So, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit.
    Respectfully,
    Clyde Garland
    3100 Rolling Glen
    Bryan, TX 77807-3209
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032649

From: Pat Ahumada
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Pat Ahumada
    53 Alan A Dale
    Brownsville, TX 78521-3513
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032650

From: Dean Lyons
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Please do not allow Microsoft to continue its antitrust business 
practices. To allow them a legal access to the Education Market at 
the expense of Apple Computer is ludicrous.
    Respectfully,
    Dean Lyons
    1435 Monticello Road
    Jacksonville, FL 32207-8857
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032651

From: Robert Kersteen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 2:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Kersteen
    2821 61st Lane North
    St. Petersburg, FL 33710-3357
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032652

From: Madoline Rogers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Madoline Rogers
    4713 Cole Ave.
    Waco, TX 76710-4611
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032653

From: Charles Parrott
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the

[[Page 29877]]

availability of software products. We have stressed that Microsoft 
is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that their products 
increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charles Parrott
    8272 Denise Dr.
    Largo, FL 33777-2716
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032654

From: Lisa Cate
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Lisa Cate
    7907 Old Hwy 86
    Chapel Hill, NC 27516
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032655

From: Ira Paul
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ira Paul
    18495 NW 78th Avenue
    Hialeah, FL 33015-2704
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032656

From: Betty McCoy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Betty McCoy
    413 Glenport Ave
    Glencoe, AL 35905-1189
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032657

From: Harry Hintz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Harry Hintz
    5306 Overtop Lane
    Raleigh, NC 27613-5550
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032658

From: Jonathan Harris
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.

[[Page 29878]]

    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jonathan Harris
    22479 Martella Ave
    Boca Raton, FL 33433-4630
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032659

From: LYNN AND JOHN MCGLENN
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 3:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    LYNN AND JOHN MCGLENN
    333NW FERRIS DR.
    PORT ST. LUCIE, FL 34983-8668
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032660

From: JOHN COLLAR
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    JOHN COLLAR
    333 MELROSE DRIVE
    5 D
    RICHARDSON, TX 75080-4406
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032661

From: Linda Addison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Linda Addison
    222 Steedly Ave
    Lake Wales, FL 33853-3756
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032662

From: Claude Prevots
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/15/02 4:09pm
Subject: Tunney: Creativity in software engineering
    Greetings:
    It is not in the public interest to constrain further the 
creativity and innovation of Microsoft designers and software 
engineers with additional, legally complex conditions. The remedies 
already provided by the settlement provisions construct an edifice 
of legal reasoning and arcane subtleties that will require software 
developers to get a law degree to cut through this Byzantine 
complexity. Endless meetings and explanations between lawyers and 
engineers, not new products, are what will result.
    When Attorney General Janet Reno proclaimed her enthusiastic 
anticipation of the new varieties of DOS engendered by enforcement 
of antitrust laws, one could only groan in disbelief at her failure 
to understand how progress in the systems business thrives. In 
retrospect we find no new varieties of DOS but find that it has 
almost disappeared.
    With Microsoft the consumer is benefited by a culture of 
excellence that its competitors are unable to match. We need the 
robust organization of Microsoft to keep its competitors on their 
toes. An added onset of elegantia juris will only stifle further the 
creative minds that generate the innovation we need to keep the U.S. 
economy thriving with new functions and features to empower 
consumers.
    Claude Prevots
    [email protected]



MTC-00032663

From: Richard Swier
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's

[[Page 29879]]

Window's operating system to incorporate their software programs and 
will give consumers more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Swier
    6718 Paseo Castille
    Sarasota, FL 34238-2709
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032664

From: Jennifer Crenshaw
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jennifer Crenshaw
    443 Randon Terrace
    Lake Mary, FL 32746-2626
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032665

From: JERRY CULBERSON
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    JERRY CULBERSON
    4092 LIGUSTRUM DR.
    PALM HARBOR, FL 34685-3631
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032666

From: Ronald Hoelzer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ronald Hoelzer
    8318 W. Elm Street
    Tampa, FL 33615-2806
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032667

From: E. Geissler
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    E. Geissler
    4775 South Atlantic Avenue
    Ponce Inlet, FL 32127-8108
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032668

From: James Rentner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29880]]

Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The 
settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts competitors to 
use Microsofts Windows operating system to incorporate their 
software programs and will give consumers more services and products 
to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Rentner
    67 Summerset Drive
    Clyde, NC 28721-8415
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032669

From: Dick Wilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Dick Wilson
    7735 Taymouth ln
    Charlotte, NC 28269-9127
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032670

From: Richard McCormack
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard McCormack
    23225 Hagey Road
    Dundee, OR 97115-9211
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032671

From: David Anderson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Anderson
    1418 NE 112 Ave.
    Portland, OR 97220-3024
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032672

From: Madeleine Calder
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Madeleine Calder
    2605 Olive Chapel Rd.
    Apex, NC 27502-6789
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy

[[Page 29881]]



MTC-00032673

From: Thomas Griffith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company. Get 
the government out of our business before we lose valuable companies 
due to the meddling by these misguided officials. Do we want all of 
our companies going overseas to operate overseas due to too much 
government intervention? What sense is there in degrading a company 
who has done so much good for so many people? Shame on them all.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas Griffith
    2426 Barrington Place Drive
    Sugar Land, TX 77478-1855
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032674

From: Terry Smith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Terry Smith
    P O Box 5166
    3720 Chula Vista Dr SW
    Decatur, AL 35601-0166
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032675

From: Michael Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Walker
    446 N Central Valley Dr
    Central Point, OR 97502-1571
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032676

From: Marlene Lieb
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Marlene Lieb
    18 Mahoe Dr. So.
    The Hammock, FL 32137-2634
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032677

From: margaret moorman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have

[[Page 29882]]

called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. Department of 
Justice and to state attorneys' general offices explaining 
that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided them 
with great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the 
availability of software products. We have stressed that Microsoft 
is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that their products 
increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    margaret moorman
    216 lakeway
    kerrville, TX 78028-7229
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032678

From: Gary Dryden
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    Whereas Microsoft has been solely responisble for greatly 
increasing the total propductivity of our nation, they where then 
penalized with a bogus law suit by Clinton Administration whims. 
When others saw the goverrnment's actions the current recession 
began.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Dryden
    582 Ruckel Drive
    Niceville , FL 32578-1789
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032679

From: David Fuson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Hey! socialist duds! Get off the back of a fine American who 
refuses to pay for Lobbist or Government Help inside the loop.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Fuson
    2119 Five Iron Dr.
    Houston, TX 77089-5618
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032680

From: Floyd Lawson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.Some state 
attoneys general seem to be interested for their own political self-
edification.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. It 
appears to have been the primordium of the fantastic rollercoaster 
economy that we have had beginning in 1992.
    Furthermore, it appears to have been a ``political 
vindetta'' because of Microsoft's entrance into the 
communications field, namely, MSNBC. It was predicted by this writer 
in the early programming at MSNBC.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Floyd Lawson
    1020 Larkwood Drive, NE
    Cullman, AL 35055-2133
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032681

From: Charles Baker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I support the recent settlement of the long-running antitrust 
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys 
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state 
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's 
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that 
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have 
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charles Baker
    4646 Pliney Farlow Rd.
    Trinity, NC 27370-7449
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032682

From: Gerald Totten
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 7:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that

[[Page 29883]]

Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided them with 
great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability 
of software products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer 
in the high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gerald Totten
    108 Petty Road
    Siler City, NC 27344-7892
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032683

From: Rev. James Rodgers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I agree with the Justice Department's decision to settle with 
Microsoft Corp. The holdout state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia should follow your lead.
    Microsoft's actions, instead of harming consumers, lowered the 
cost and increased the availability of the software products they 
sought. Microsoft also made millions of us more famiiliar with the 
Internet.
    Thanks for deciding to settle this unjust lawsuit.
    Respectfully,
    Rev. James Rodgers
    15727 El Camino Real
    Clear Lake City, TX 77062-4415
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032684

From: Willie Starling
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Willie Starling
    1523 Indian Springs Rd.
    Mt. Olive, NC 28365-8767
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032685

From: Nancy Hall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 8:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Nancy Hall
    1861 Beneva Ct Apt 1203
    Sarasota, FL 34232-3150
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032686

From: Charles Snyder
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 9:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charles Snyder
    110 Harness Lane
    Georgetown, TX 78628
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032687

From: Richard Moats
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    I am still amazed the Clinton Justice Dept. chose to initiate 
this case in the first place. On second thought, I am not surprised 
by anything that happened during the most corrupt national 
administration in the history of our country.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.

[[Page 29884]]

    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Moats
    2825 41st. Way S.E.
    Olympia, WA 98501-6212
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032688

From: Clifford Earle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/15/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Deserves a Breakup
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Below please find the text of a form letter available on the 
``Capitol Connect'' site, supposedly a consumer advocacy 
outfit of some sort. Please do not believe a word of it.
    Microsoft deserves to be slammed in court for their actions and 
practices, and I would hope that no amount of thoughtless form 
letters, however prettily formatted, would change that fact.
    Regards,
    --Cliff ***
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Clifford Earle
    8640 Hillrose St.
    Sunland, CA 91040-2701
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032689

From: Dave Catherman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Dave Catherman
    5712 Stone Mill Rd
    Waxhaw, NC 28173-8059
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032690

From: James Collins
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Collins
    109 ridge View Rd
    Pittsboro, NC 27312-5663
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032691

From: paul caple
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    paul caple
    3215 NE 15 ST #101
    Pompano Beach, FL 33062-3321
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032692

From: Gary Lewis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.

[[Page 29885]]

    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Lewis
    160 W Park Ave
    Mooresville, NC 28115-2242
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032693

From: Renee Pearison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Renee Pearison
    5434 Alfred St
    Crozet, VA 22932-3514
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032694

From: Troy Landrum
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Troy Landrum
    509 Ridge Country Road
    Haslet, TX 76052-4207
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032695

From: James Parker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Parker
    3445 Self Creek Rd
    Warrior, AL 35180-2215
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032696

From: Chris Sinclair
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Chris Sinclair
    3728 Cliff Haven Drive
    Raleigh, NC 27615-8118
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032697

From: Jim Thrasher
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)

[[Page 29886]]

    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jim Thrasher
    4613 70th Place
    Urbandale, IA 50322-8012
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032698

From: Sepideh Baghaii
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the the state attorneys general and 
the District of Columbia against Microsoft.
    The settlement is a slap on the wrist to Microsoft. It will not 
guarantee that Microsoft cannot continue to attack small or other 
large companies through non-competitive means. The Microsoft Windows 
operating system is only now becoming a true operating system. It 
still leaves a lot to be desired. Whether or not Microsoft choose to 
create more mediocre products for the public is not an issue. 
Whether or not smaller software companies and other companies can 
play in this market is.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. This view point is clearly a 
misguide stance from a group of people unaware of the speed of 
changing technology and the options available to them. For nearly 3 
years, activists like myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent 
letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' 
general offices explaining that Microsoft's actions is detrimental 
to consumers. The evidence can be seen in the demise of Netscape and 
the battles against SUN over J++. Microsoft's anticompetitive 
behavior has limited the high-technology market and have forced 
users to learn to accept mediocre products.
    Respectfully,
    Sepideh Baghaii
    1020 Kent St.
    #216
    Boulder, CO 80303-1826



MTC-00032699

From: Brian Irving
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Brian Irving
    1713 Veanna Drive
    Fayetteville, NC 28301-2926
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032700

From: Michael Wegman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Wegman
    609 Green Drive
    Goldsboro, NC 27534-7743
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032701

From: Roger Corbett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Roger Corbett
    7508 Roberts Rd

[[Page 29887]]

    Apex, NC 27502-9674
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032702

From: Carolyn and Gerald Johnson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Carolyn and Gerald Johnson
    7689 Rabbit Circle
    Denver, NC 28037-9477
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032703

From: Joseph Piccirillo
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Piccirillo
    702 Ocean Dunes Circle
    Jupiter, FL 33477-9117
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032704

From: John Benningfield
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Benningfield
    2015 N Fremont
    Cornelius, OR 97113-7384
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032705

From: Miss Julie Smithson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Miss Julie Smithson
    213 Thorn Locust Lane
    London, OH 43140-8844
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032706

From: Linda Ayers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    Continuation of the case threatens to prolong the 8-month old 
recession, as well as increase the severity of the technology 
sector's 18-month decline. In this time of economic uncertainty, we 
need businesses that stimulate demand for other products throughout 
their industry to get back to work, not encounter new obstacles to 
growth. It is time to put an end to this lawsuit and get back to the 
business of strengthing our economy

[[Page 29888]]

    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Linda Ayers
    3220 Darlington Dr. SW
    Decatur, AL 35603-3165
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032707

From: John Harding
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Harding
    5906 143rd St SE
    Everett, WA 98208-9339
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032708

From: Phyllis Sisk
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Phyllis Sisk
    4965 Old Belews Creek Road
    Winston-Salem, NC 27101-6426
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032709

From: Roy Stewart
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government s lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft s 
competitors to use Microsoft s Window s operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government s 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Roy Stewart
    19 Hickory Lane
    Bedford, NH 03110-5720
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032710

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/16/02 7:12am
Subject: MicroSoft Settlement
    I just wanted to vent about what is happening with the MicroSoft 
Settlement. MicroSoft started from nothing and is solely responsible 
for the PC revolution and a good deal of the other technological 
advancements we know and enjoy today. It is unfair for this country 
to penalize success. I think it is great that finally a U.S. company 
is a world leader and is able to compete with other corporations 
around the world especially when so many of them are subsidized by 
their governmants.
    Please stop playing politics and look at all the good that the 
company does. Bill Gates donates a lot to charities, pays more than 
his share in personnel and corporate taxes and provides a lot of 
jobs. I was disgusted and embarassed to be an American under Clinton 
but have regained my pride and patriotism under President Bush. 
Please do the correct and honorable thing and put this endless 
litigation to rest. The only people that win are the lawyers.
    Thank you,
    Bill Klueber



MTC-00032711

From: Floyd Majors
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese: I am writing in support of the recent settlement 
of the long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Floyd Majors
    4922 Middleton Street
    Baytown, TX 77520-1402

[[Page 29889]]

    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032712

From: Michael Weekley
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese: I am writing in support of the recent settlement 
of the long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Weekley
    4610 Governor Kent Ct.
    Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-5905
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032713

From: Robin Alberg
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese: I am writing in support of the recent settlement 
of the long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robin Alberg
    9027 W. Shorewood Dr. #603
    Mercer Island, WA 98040-3236
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032714

From: Jane Aguirre
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese: I am writing in support of the recent settlement 
of the long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jane Aguirre
    1308 N. 13th St.
    Temple, TX 76501-1904
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032715

From: Aaron Alberg
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Aaron Alberg
    9027 W. Shorewood Dr.
    Apt. 603
    Mercer Island, WA 98040-6265
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032716

From: Marcus Griffis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the

[[Page 29890]]

high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Marcus Griffis
    717 Dove Dr
    Victoria, TX 77905-0558
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032717

From: Shirley Briden
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Shirley Briden
    941 Southridge Tr.
    Altamonte Springs,, FL 32714-1286
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032718

From: Charlie Brown
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charlie Brown
    PO Box 40
    Barium Springs, NC 28010-0040
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032719

From: Howard Kistler
Date: 1/16/02 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern,
    As a long-time computer programmer and software developer, I am 
urging the Department Of Justice to consider practical and 
responsible remedies to the monopoly of Microsoft.
    Microsoft has long enjoyed immunity from punishment for its many 
abuses of power. This is in a large part because those abuses allow 
it make far more money than is ever levied against it in penalty. In 
truth, it is hard to calculate how large a fine would be necessary 
to even impact them. That is why other remedies must be pursued, 
beyond those of simple fines and behavioral decrees.
    I believe that one of the only, if not the only, remedies that 
would address the monopoly situation is to force Microsoft to open 
up the Windows APIs for competitive development. This would have 
multiple positive effects, including the following:
    (1) It would allow true competition in the operating system 
marketplace. Competition in turn is one of the only factors that 
drive companies to produce a genuinely better product, and to offer 
those products at reasonable market prices. It is my opinion that 
this lack of competition is a large part of what has cause Microsoft 
to offer increasingly problematic and user-hostile products, and at 
absurdly inflated prices.
    (2) It would create transparency in the operating system. This 
would allow other companies and developers to create products that 
interface better with the OS, as well as decrease the amount of 
viruses and other code exploits written which take advantage of the 
hidden code.
    (3) It would spur actual innovation from Microsoft, as opposed 
to it merely bundling in features which increase its monopoly but do 
not add to, and often hinder, the user experience.
    The only argument against this remedy that I can see as viable 
is that this settlement deprives Microsoft of some of their 
intellectual property. While very probably true, it is also 
unfortunate that this is most likely the only way in which Microsoft 
can be brought to terms in the settlement. As a company which has 
enjoyed a monopoly position for too long, and which has deprived 
other firms of their intellectual property and market share, and 
which has flaunted its disregard for previous judgements against it, 
I believe that opening the Windows APIs is the only option left to 
the DOJ if it truly wishes to resolve this issue. Otherwise, we can 
all expect another investigation like this within the next decade, 
and each decade after until real action is taken against the 
Microsoft monopoly.
    Sincerely,
    Howard Kistler



MTC-00032720

From: linda woods
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 7:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    linda woods
    44966 camino veste
    temecula, CA 92592-1622
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032721

From: Roger Ryder
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:07am

[[Page 29891]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Roger Ryder
    235 E. Garfield St.
    Chambersburg, PA 17201-3514
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032722

From: James Hinson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    If you will take the time to research it you will see that the 
stock markets started their downward sperial at about the same time 
that the law suit against Microsoft started. It has continued to go 
down since that fateful time. Please, please get off of American 
businesses back and leave the free enterprize system alone. Every 
time the goverment sees fit to intrude on the free enterprize system 
we end up with nothing but trouble.
    Respectfully,
    James Hinson
    2538 Comanche Trail
    Hillsborough, NC 27278-8854
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032723

From: Ed Pickett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ed Pickett
    21o Hunter ln.
    CHARLOTTE, NC 28211
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032724

From: William A.Pauwels, Sr.
To: judi bron
Date: 1/16/02 8:58am
Subject: More on the Microsoft Settlement
    Judi,
    Your unhappiness with Microsoft represents a need that another 
company should exploit. If they were any good they would already be 
doing so. It is not the Governments business to make Microsoft less 
competitive.
    I sympathize with the technical problems you are having. I go 
nuts when I have them, which is fairly often. Let's face it, 
personal computer technology is at the Model-T stage of development. 
The V-8 hasn't been invented yet. Let's hope it happens soon.
    There are so many things the Government should be focused on . . 
. like preserving good manufacturing jobs in America. Why they keep 
attacking good American companies makes no sense. Where do they 
think the good jobs are going to come from?
    Also, I think the overpayment of Corporate Executives is a 
National and perhaps International disgrace. I say that as the 18 
year President and COO of a mid-sized multinational company (now 
semi-retired). It is one thing to invest and risk your own capital 
and make a fortune . . . it is quit another thing to be given 
exorbitant salaries and lucrative stock option deals. I know all the 
arguments about creating value, but this value should be shared with 
the employees and not hogged up by a handful of greedy executives. 
Anyway, I appreciate you perspective.
    All the best!
    Bill Pauwels, Sr.
    1-16-02
    judi b wrote:
    A month ago I would hav agreed with you and then some, but then 
I had an experience. You know that I am legally blind and work on 
adaptive equipment. I downloaded IE6 and OE6 and they weren't that 
compatable with my screen reader. I called in a tech for a lot of 
money and asked him if he could remove IE6 and OE6 and reinstall OE5 
and IE5. It was a brutal job but he eventually did it. In short, 
because there were componants of the 6 family left in the computer 
that microsoft designed to not be removed the install of the 5 
family really messed up my computer. I could not write an Email and 
I could not write on the net. In other words I could not write on a 
search engine a subject I wanted to search for. Since I hav 
thousands of hours of work on this machine and none of it gets 
anywhere if I don't have Email, which the reinstall of the 5 family 
left me with, I spent a harrowing weekend wondering if I would ever 
send out another article. Bill Gates deserves what he has earned and 
deserves the noteriety for what he has accomplished. However, why 
does he have this desire to totally take over every computer to the 
extent that changes cannot be made because the componants in his 
software can never get out of a system once they get in? Bill, if 
you buy a house with a garage would it be fair that the only car 
that the garage could hold be a chevy? I know this analogy is far 
fetched but there is nothing else that I know of that dominates like 
Microsoft. The upshot of my problem is that I reinstalled the 6 
family and am living with

[[Page 29892]]

the inconveniences that occur with my screen reader, its better than 
having no Email and no ability to search on the net. Judi
----- Original Message -----
From: ``William A.Pauwels, Sr.'' 

To: 
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 6:01 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The case against Microsoft should be dropped. Microsoft has made 
GREAT contributions to the well-being of mankind and to its 
institutions.
    The Justice Dept.'s persecution of SUCCESSFUL American companies 
because their competitors don't like them and/or can't measure-up in 
the marketplace, is ridiculous.
    If the Justice Dept. is looking for something to champion, why 
not go after the thousands of FOREIGN companies doing business in 
the USA while violating American Antitrust Laws.
    Sincerely,
    William A. Pauwels, Sr.
    1-15-02



MTC-00032725

From: Tyler Haynes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Tyler Haynes
    3419 Foss Drive
    Saginaw, MI 48603-1711
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032726

From: Roberta Hoffman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Roberta Hoffman
    2940 W Carson Street Unit 102
    Torrance,, CA 90503-6059
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032727

From: w. orben
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    w. orben
    139 n.fiji is. cir.
    no. englewood , FL 34223
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032728

From: Samuel Butler
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I support the recent settlement of the long-running antitrust 
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys 
general and Microsoft Corporation. Too,I applaud the nine state 
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's 
lead and settle the case, However, the decision to pursue this 
baseless case, made by the remaining state attorneys general and the 
District of Columbia, is extremely disappointing and needless.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, we, the members of Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, are unrelenting in our opposition to the federal 
government's antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
activists like myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent 
letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state 
attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's actions 
did not harm consumers, but provided them with great benefits by 
lowering the cost and increasing the availability of software 
products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that their products increased our familiarity 
with the Internet.
    I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate lawsuit 
against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Samuel Butler
    1487 Shorewood Place
    Lakeland, FL 33803-4275
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032729

From: John Enright
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft

[[Page 29893]]

Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that 
decided to follow the federal governments lead and settle the case, 
I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general 
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this 
baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Enright
    7 Golden Place
    The Woodlands, TX 77381-4329
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032730

From: Oscar Engfer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Oscar Engfer
    PO Box 26
    Orting, WA 98360-0026
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032731

From: Peggy Venable
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Peggy Venable
    13419 Wisterwood
    Austin, TX 78729-1941
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032732

From: Robert Fricke
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 10:25am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Fricke
    612 Tara Dr.
    High Point, NC 27265-1012
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032733

From: Fred Habenicht
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 11:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Fred Habenicht
    163 Prawn Road
    Port Angeles, WA 98363-9000
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy

[[Page 29894]]



MTC-00032734

From: Ernest Hartwig
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ernest Hartwig
    1534 Mary's Peak Rd.
    Blodgett, OR 97326-9704
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032735

From: Thomas Gillespie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Reject It)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    The Microsoft Settlement is bad for the computer industry. 
Please do not support the settlement. Microsoft needs to know that 
anti-competitive actions in the market will not be tolerated by our 
elective leaders.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas Gillespie
    P.O. Box 177
    Albany, MO 64402-0177



MTC-00032736

From: Jack Hansen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jack Hansen
    1600 Verde Lane
    Mundelein, IL 60060-4821
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032737

From: Frank Russo
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Frank Russo
    PO Box 12
    102 Cambridge Crt
    Havelock, NC 28532-0012
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032738

From: john marten
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    john marten
    37666 hwy 58
    pleasant hill, OR 97455-9787
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032739

From: Mary Syrdahl
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts

[[Page 29895]]

Windows operating system to incorporate their software programs and 
will give consumers more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Mary Syrdahl
    2231 Robinhood
    Houston, TX 77005-2603
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032740

From: Colin Hathcock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Colin Hathcock
    108 Leach Rd
    Salisbury, NC 28146-8578
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032741

From: Michael Conklin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Conklin
    1911 NW 29th Court
    Ocala, FL 34475-4710
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032742

From: Brian Van Bergen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. DOJ, state attorneys 
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state 
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal governments 
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that 
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have 
decided to further pursue this baseless wasteful case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
DOJ and to state attorneys' general offices explaining that 
Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided them with 
great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability 
of software products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer 
in the high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Brian Van Bergen
    141 SW Hawthorne Ct.
    Dundee, OR 97115-9547
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032743

From: Norman Bresette
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Norman Bresette
    113 Montclair Road
    Mauldin, SC 29662-1829
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032744

From: MaryAnn Thompson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29896]]

Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    MaryAnn Thompson
    205 Seneca Ct
    Franklin, TN 37067-1324
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032745

From: Gil
To: DOJ
Date: 1/16/02 2:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I should think that my government would have better things to do 
with my tax dollars than persecute Microsoft. Big business is a 
notoriously ``hard ball'' environment, and other software 
manufacturers had several years to get their ``at bats'' 
while MS was still playing with DOS versions 1 though 4. Windows 
didn't really become popular until v 3.0, but the slackers in the 
industry failed to foresee how popular Windows would become. That's 
not the fault of Gates et al. As for what MS wishes to incorporate 
into their OS--that should be up to them. It's their product, 
and if they want to give away a BMW with the damn thing then that's 
their call! Nobody in the country is selling web browsers anyway, so 
what's the big deal? None of the other software publishers is 
building a competitive operating system/interface to try to loosen 
the MS hold on the market. They'd rather sit around crying to the 
DOJ about how they've been beaten up by MS because they failed to 
forecast the market correctly. I have one word for them--TOUGH! 
If you want to look into some real monopolizing why not check out 
Apple--they have no competition in their market for either 
their operating system or hardware.
    Or investigate Intel--whose only real competitor, AMD, is 
having their share of financial woes. To lose AMD would give Intel 
the same kind of power that you're claiming Microsoft has garnered 
through hard work, outstanding marketing, and yes, occasional 
pressure. But then, everybody in business uses what power they may 
have to get the edge on their competitors--that's what makes 
our system work. Mass producers get lower per unit costs on 
everything than a Mom and Pop operation gets. That hurts the 
struggling independent--but nobody seems to care 
much--except Mom and Pop. It's the way things work!
    All large businesses use whatever leverage they have to improve 
their market share while reducing the market prospects of 
competitors. Microsoft has just been more successful at it than 
anybody in the world could have imagined when Gates bought the 
rights to an unpromising DOS from IBM. Bill Gates is the 
``Alexander the Great'' of product development and 
marketing. The world has never seen the likes of Microsoft before, 
and it might never see another such phenomena again. He hasn't done 
anything patently illegal, and there's no law requiring mercy for 
those who cannot or will not compete-- let him enjoy the fruits 
of his labors. Please spend my tax dollars on something more 
meaningful than buying Kleenexes for a bunch of sobbing ``big 
business'' tycoons who failed to read the writing on the wall.
    ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT OFFER!
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00032746

From: Richard Higginbotham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Higginbotham
    84 Cherokee Trail
    Medford Lakes, NJ 08055-1602
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032747

From: Joe Haynes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joe Haynes
    10012 130th Lane North
    Seminole, FL 33776-1709
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032748

From: Delbert Bock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 3:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
governments lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsofts 
competitors to use Microsofts Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.

[[Page 29897]]

    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal governments 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Delbert Bock
    PO Box 1628
    Rogue River, OR 97537-1628
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032749

From: Patricia Lauzon
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Patricia Lauzon
    3811 Beckley
    Battle Creek, MI 49015-9329
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032750

From: John Wilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. I see these 
actions demonstrating the attitude of ``let's milk another 
corporation'' a la the heinous assult on ``big 
tobacco.'' To paraphrase a formal presidential advisor, 
``It's the money, stupid.''
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Wilson
    R. D. 2
    Templeton, PA 16259-9802
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032751

From: Randy Copeland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 5:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Randy Copeland
    3303 Mt. Willing Rd
    Efland, NC 27243-9121
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032752

From: JEAN Chan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    JEAN Chan
    27277 Smith River Rd
    Reedsport, OR 97467
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032753

From: Walter Gammel
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 8:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:

[[Page 29898]]

    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Walter Gammel
    10640 East Michigan Avenue
    Sun Lakes, AZ 85248-8809
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032754

From: Kath Glauser
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Kath Glauser
    2260 Scovel Ave.
    Pennsauken, NJ 08110-1726
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032755

From: R. Herschel Wyatt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/16/02 9:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    R. Herschel Wyatt
    68 Delbert Hodge Rd.
    London, KY 40741-9061
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032756

From: Harry Pierson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 4:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Harry Pierson
    11064 Clear Meadows Dr.
    Las Vegas, NV 89134-7235
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032758

From: Jerry Chabrian
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,

[[Page 29899]]

    Jerry Chabrian
    648 Bua Drive
    Temple Terrace, FL 33617-3800
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032759

From: Shirley Bossbach
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Shirley Bossbach
    6132 Davidson Dr.
    Matthews, NC 28104-5450
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032760

From: Maryann Christensen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    LEAVE IT ALONE!! The recent settlement of the long-running 
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state 
attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation is fair. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Window's operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Maryann Christensen
    583 East Benbow Street
    Murray, UT 84107-5075
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032761

From: FRANK SKIERMONT
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    FRANK SKIERMONT
    25 SHERWOOD LANE
    DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901-3234
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032762

From: charles braly
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    charles braly
    685 east adams street
    nashville, IL 62263-1766
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032763

From: Kevin Allen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by

[[Page 29900]]

lowering the cost and increasing the availability of software 
products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that their products increased our familiarity 
with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Kevin Allen
    3001 Emerald Chase Drive
    Oak Hill, VA 20171-2335
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032764

From: David Rive
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Rive
    3320 Kemper Street, 201
    San Diego, CA 92110-4905
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032765

From: Roger Bartilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Roger Bartilson
    17928 Jaguar Path
    Lakeville, MN 55044-9678
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032766

From: J. Mark (Marco) Gentile
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    J. Mark (Marco) Gentile
    P.O. Box 2914
    La Jolla, CA 92038-2914
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032767

From: Brian Humble
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing to oppose the recent settlement of the long-running 
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state 
attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the 
nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that these state attorneys general have decided to let Microsoft win 
the case.
    The settlement is only favorable to Microsoft. It will only 
allow Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating 
system to incorporate their software programs but will still give 
Microsoft more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in their opposition to the federal 
government's antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
activists like these have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters 
to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' 
general offices explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm 
consumers, but have not provided any proof to that effect.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to not settle this 
fortunate lawsuit against an oppressive and monopolistic company.
    Respectfully,
    Brian Humble
    6 Helen Street
    Georgetown, DE 19947-9442
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032768

From: John Dupree
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft.

[[Page 29901]]

For nearly 3 years, activists like myself have called, emailed, 
visited, and sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to 
state attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's 
actions did not harm consumers, but provided them with great 
benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of 
software products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in 
the high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Dupree
    8705 Kugler Mill Rd
    Cincinnati, OH 45243-1427
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032769

From: Jean Fordham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jean Fordham
    891 Warwick Dr.
    Macon, GA 31210-1535
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032770

From: Jeffrey James
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation.
    The settlement is more than fair to all. It will allow 
Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system 
to incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate lawsuit 
against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jeffrey James
    822 Forest Ave.
    OMAHA, NE 68108-3631
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032771

From: Tom Dekker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Tom Dekker
    22 Serna
    RSM, CA 92688-2741
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032772

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: addelivery@universaladvertising. com@inetgw
Date: 1/17/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Over the years I have seen MS stifle competition by stomping out 
rivals. I work in the Web Development arena, helping companies to 
build on line applications. I also use other operating systems 
besides Windows. I want the freedom to use the platform of choice 
and this will only continue to be an option if MS has viable 
competition. This competition will only continue if developers are 
not scared away from working with other companies by MS.
    The settlement MS has proposed only allows them further inroads 
into a field (education) where they have the only serious 
competition. Apple has worked very hard to cultivate the education 
market--fairly!
    To give MS unfettered access to that market would only hasten 
it's demise. Corporations find themselves spending billions to keep 
up with MS. Conversely, supporting Apple computers in education is a 
much more cost efficient method of bringing technology to students. 
Total cost of ownership is much higher with MS operating systems and 
compatible PC's. Allowing MS to rapidly corner this market, as the 
current proposal provides, would not only stifle competitors, it 
would cost education and thus government even more money and not 
benefit students beyond what they currently receive.
    Derrick Peavy
    Sales and Web Services
    Universal Advertising
    [email protected]
    Phone: 404-786-5036
    Fax: 404-477-0527
    Corporate:
    1304 North Cliff Valley Way
    Atlanta, GA 30319
    Tearsheets:
    PO Box 191188
    Atlanta, GA 31119
    CC:Microsoft 
ATR,[email protected]@ine...



MTC-00032773

From: Hillary Murphy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.

[[Page 29902]]

    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Hillary Murphy
    421 Forest Glen Drive
    Albany, GA 31707-3009
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032774

From: Margaret Bullock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Margaret Bullock
    15 W. Roszell Dr.
    Nineveh, IN 46164-9737
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032775

From: Robert Moeller
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Because 
we are living in a country who governs ``by the people, for the 
people'', we hope you will consider the voice of ``the 
people''.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert & Susan Moeller
    10706 Silver Pheasant Drive
    Charlotte, NC 28226-4614
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032776

From: James Warn
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Warn
    1901 Conridge Dr
    Edmond, OK 73034-6862
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032777

From: Ron LITTLE
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ron LITTLE
    3205 CORAL DRIVE
    OCEANSIDE, CA 92056-3927
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032778

From: Steven Goldmacher
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese

[[Page 29903]]

Date: 1/17/02 8:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Steven Goldmacher
    9 Brantford Court
    Marlboro, NJ 07746-1237
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032779

From: William Bertles
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    William Bertles
    1805 Kenwood ave
    Alexandria, VA 22302-2641
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032780

From: Kristopher McCasland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Kristopher McCasland
    166 Oxford Ave.
    Bradford, MA 01835-8339
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032781

From: Lisa Walker
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Lisa Walker
    7444 Shadowwood CT NE
    Keizer, OR 97303-7853
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032782

From: Melissa Hawkes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.

[[Page 29904]]

    Respectfully,
    Melissa Hawkes
    7559 Glowing Ember Court
    #201
    Las Vegas, NV 89130-7920
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032783

From: Stephen Foxx
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Stephen Foxx
    7915 Campion Ln.
    Hazelwood, MO 63042-3501
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032784

From: Cheryl Engasser
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Cheryl Engasser
    1515 Boies Road
    East Aurora, NY 14052-9726
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032785

From: DONALD WALLING
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    DONALD WALLING
    855 HEATHERIDGE
    BRIGHTON, MI 48116
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032786

From: Tom Burris
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Tom Burris
    P.O. Box 379
    4161 Fox Rd
    Kingsville, OH 44048-0379
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032787

From: George Forray
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by

[[Page 29905]]

lowering the cost and increasing the availability of software 
products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that their products increased our familiarity 
with the Internet. Once again, I thank you for your decision to 
settle this unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative 
company.
    Respectfully,
    George Forray
    337 Campbell St.
    Mishawaka, IN 46544-2853
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032788

From: Rick Moore
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Rick Moore
    7580 Seacrest Way, North
    Noblesville, IN 46060
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032789

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: dept. of justice
Date: 1/17/02 9:23am
Subject: Open file formats
    I would like to comment on the Microsoft case. There should be a 
push towards opening Microsoft file formats ( ea.. Word, Excel) if 
government doesn't want to find itself in a position where Bill 
Gates will dictate when and what software to use and how much to put 
in his coffers. It only make sense that user should be able to use 
any word processor to open a document, or any spreadsheet program to 
open a spreadsheet and so on. You do not have to break company apart 
to force competition. Just insist that in order to get government 
software contracts, it has to be open file format.
    Regards
    Marek Kiela
    [email protected]
    Canada



MTC-00032790

From: Dale Hash
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Dale Hash
    8014 Troiano Drive
    Culpeper, VA 22701-7267
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032791

From: Bernard McCoy
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Bernard McCoy
    179 Brandon
    Glen Ellyn, IL 60137-5378
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032792

From: Eric Gruss
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Non-Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in non-support of the recent settlement of the 
long-running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of 
Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. I am 
disappointed in the nine state attorneys generalalong with the 
federal government's decision to settle the case. I am very estatic 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this case.
    The settlement is unfair to all. It will allow Microsoft's to 
contiune on with an unfair monopoly of the home PC operating 
systems. I believe they will also continue to abuse loopholes in 
this agreement to claim their ``openess'' while behind the 
scenes they will make changes to users computers to render other 
company's software products inoperable.
    Recentlly Microsoft released it's newest operating system that 
threatens every small software vendor in the US. It gives Microsoft 
the ability to force updates on users computers that could 
consequentlly have adverse effects on other non-microsoft software. 
Once again, I would urge you not to settle this lawsuit against a 
successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Eric Gruss
    2424 Alvarado Dr
    Kettering, OH 45420-1010



MTC-00032794

From: Jenny McNamara
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29906]]

Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The 
settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to 
use Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their 
software programs and will give consumers more services and products 
to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jenny McNamara
    2801 Lake Earl Drive
    Crescent City, CA 95531-8814
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032795

From: Andrew Rufus
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 9:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew Rufus
    221 west 12th street
    apt#221
    Columbus, OH 43210-1303
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032796

From: Robert Moore
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Moore
    319 W. Oak St.
    Washington Court House, OH 43160-1853
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032797

From: Ben Leland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.WE 
HAVE WASTED ENOUGH TIME AND MONEY ON THIS CASE AND SHOULD NOT EXPEND 
ANYMORE.wE HAVE MANY OTHETR PLACES TO PUT THE TAXPAYER'S HARD EARNED 
MONEY. LETS GET GOING. BTLELAND
    Respectfully,
    Ben Leland
    6041 Kendrick Circle
    Huntington Beach, CA 92647-4235
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032798

From: David Padden
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Padden
    10357 S. Leavitt St.
    Chicago, IL 60643-2418

[[Page 29907]]

    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032799

From: M. Sass
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    M. Sass
    3550 N Lake Shore Dr
    Chicago, IL 60657-1916
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032800

From: James Orcutt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Orcutt
    PO Box 465
    Fallbrook, CA 92088-0465
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032801

From: Virginia Almonrode
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Virginia Almonrode
    PCO 1st District
    8611 NE 135th
    Kirkland, WA 98034-1723
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032802

From: matthew casey
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Matthew Casey
    3601 Genevieve Ave N.
    Oakdale, MN 55128-3070
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032803

From: David L. Williams
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I support the recent settlement of the lawsuit between the U.S. 
Department of Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft 
Corporation.
    The majority of Americans also support Microsoft as witnessed by 
continuing heavy use of their innovative and successful software. 
The irony of a government trying to destroy a successful business is 
not lost on many people.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.

[[Page 29908]]

    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David L. Williams
    1335 Sunny Slope Rd.
    Fairbanks, AK 99709-6430
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032804

From: Jack Davis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jack Davis
    1702 Vintner Way
    San Jose, CA 95124-5739
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032805

From: Gem Burke
To: Justice
Date: 1/17/02 10:50am
Subject: Fwd: Microsoft Settlement Addendum
Addendum near bottom
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
cc Senator Ron Wyden
Senator Gorden Smith
Representative Greg Walden
Attorney General, State of Oregon
1810 Queens Branch Rd.
Rogue River, OR 97537
January 16, 2002
Re: Microsoft Settlement.
    My name is Gem Burke and work in the communications industry as 
an engineer. I do not claim to be a computer expert or geek, 
although I probably know more about computers & software than 
the average user. I am simply a user of computers and their software 
and I would like a statement about the ?Microsoft Settlement?. I 
have tried reading at least some of the papers on this action and 
incorporate that with what seems to be happening in the real world. 
On this very day, I installed my tax program from Quicken and at the 
end of it Microsoft's Internet Explorer was installed on my 
computer. I wasn't asked, it wasn't an option. Then I was asked if I 
wanted to install AOL. So here it is January 16, 2002 and after all 
the denials of Microsoft, I'm still getting IE shoved down my throat 
whether I like it or not. They (Microsoft) are obviously not 
concerned about anything happening to them in court. This is not the 
first time Intuit has done this to me and complained to them about 
this then to no avail.
    I could tell you about the site on the internet I logged into 
that changed all my defaults from Netscape to IE or any of quite a 
number of other examples of blatant examples of monopolistic 
behavior but the point I thought important is even on this late 
date, Microsoft is continuing to muscle out competition confident 
that it will come through this proceedings unscathed.
    I work in the telephone business and one thing for sure, as 
AT&T was accused of being a monopoly and they were forced to 
breakup into a dozen smaller companies for anticompetiveness then, 
Microsoft should be broken up into 200 smaller companies because not 
only is Microsoft bigger and stronger,. he doesn't even try to hide 
the fact that he plans to muscle everyone else out. I'm not a lawyer 
but a blind man could see the blatant anticompetativeness of 
Microsoft and the fact that he can use his resources to beat off 
anybody including the justice department. 
    01-17-02 Today I tried using Turbo Tax. The first 
thing to do is update for latest tax information. TT (Turbo Tax) 
will only allow this to be done using IE (Internet Explorer). Trying 
to get help or post comments with Netscape only results in error 
messages.
    TT help says: ************************
    ``Internet Explorer is installed to allow TurboTax to 
quickly and reliably identify your Internet Service Provider(s) 
(i.e. AOL, Earthlink...) and allow you to connect to the Internet 
through TurboTax. Access to the Internet is required to update your 
product, download your state program, and file electronically. 
Internet Explorer is not configured as your default browser and can 
be uninstalled from your computer along with TurboTax after you have 
filed your tax return.'' ************************
    Which brings to question, ``Why do they need to know who my 
IP is?'' Secondly, I suspect they are really gathering some 
other kind of information from the computer, illegally, why else 
would they insist on using this browser? There may be a lot of un-
documented features of IE may allow them to do lots of illegal 
snooping of my records. And it is just possible that Quicken has a 
back-door built into their programs that allows them access to all 
my finical records. If this could be referred to the proper 
authorities or somebody tell me who I could refer this to. I believe 
I have a valid complaint and I would like to see something done 
about it.
    Thank You
    Gem Burke



MTC-00032806

From: A. Lorenz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    A. Lorenz
    RR1
    Warsaw, OH 43844
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032807

From: Alben Du Vall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been

[[Page 29909]]

unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's antitrust 
case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself 
have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Alben Du Vall
    PO Box 199
    West Hamlin, WV 25571-0199
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032808

From: Elizabeth LeForge
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Elizabeth LeForge
    1201 Woodrow Wilson
    Fostoria, OH 44830-1663



MTC-00032809

From: Alan Price
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Alan Price
    18 Bedford Terrace
    Turnersville, NJ 08012-2102
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032810

From: Dave Hammond
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Dave Hammond
    215 Main Street
    Culver, KS 67484-9131
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032811

From: Ethelmae Humphreys
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ethelmae Humphreys
    2505 E. 11th St.
    Joplin, MO 64801-5330
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032812

From: Robert Edwards
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will

[[Page 29910]]

give consumers more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Edwards
    179 Taurus Drive
    Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459-5408
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032813

From: Jed Rice
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    To many of us the Microsoft litigation appears to be nothing 
more than the heavy hand of government in search of more money to 
squander. The government appears always to search for more money and 
power, without any increase in it's effectivness. The net effect is 
to reduce freedom for everyone and increase the cost of of 
government and everything we purchase. We should be reducing the 
power and intrusivness of government and get back to the role of 
government invisioned in the constitution.
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jed Rice
    [email protected]
    San Ramon, CA 94583
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032814

From: JoAnn King
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    JoAnn King
    2118 East Pike
    Zanesville, OH 43701-4621
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032815

From: Melanie Berrett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Melanie Berrett
    20811 Quiet Brook Place
    Potomac Falls, VA 20165-5866
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032816

From: David Seng
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Seng
    360 Browns Point
    Dawsonville, GA 30534-6903
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032817

From: Rick Sexauer

[[Page 29911]]

To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Rick Sexauer
    2517 La Sierra Court
    Camarillo, CA 93012-8812
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032818

From: JOHN D. BORGES
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    JOHN D. BORGES
    9538 RT220 HWY
    HUGHESVILLE, PA 17737
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032819

From: David Littmann
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Littmann
    2752 Courville Drive
    Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302-1017
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032820

From: Patricia Shampo
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Patricia Shampo
    1046 Hwy M 35
    Bark River, MI 49807-9770
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032821

From: Charlie Browne
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company. 
Continued harrassment of Microsoft can only further weaken the 
economies of both the USA as well as Washington and the Puget Sound 
area. This state already has the second

[[Page 29912]]

highest unenemployment rate in the nation. Enough is enough. They 
have been punished. We all have been punished! Look at the timing of 
the start of the nations economic demise and the position of Janet 
Reno's ``case'' in April of 2000.
    Respectfully,
    Charlie Browne
    638 164th Pl NE
    Bellevue, WA 98008-4013
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032822

From: Brenda Martin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Brenda Martin
    4236 Irene Drive
    Anchorage, AK 99504-4629
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032823

From: Eric Ivers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Please accept the settlement for the Microsoft case. We have 
spent altogether too much time and money on this in the first place, 
and it is time to move on.
    Respectfully,
    Eric Ivers
    145 Locust
    Carrollton, IL 62016-1328
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032824

From: Kate Mulligan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Kate Mulligan
    22 Overlook Drive
    Wilbraham, MA 01095-1924
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032825

From: Pat Cygan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 12:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Pat Cygan
    1642 Lara St. N .E.
    Palm Bay, FL 32907-2421
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032826

From: J.Bryan Mc Duffie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    J.Bryan Mc Duffie
    110 Mc Duffie Lane
    P. O. Box 1594
    West Monroe, LA 71291-9425
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032827

From: Ramon Ramirez
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state

[[Page 29913]]

attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's 
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that 
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have 
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ramon Ramirez
    3295 N 153rd Dr
    Goodyear, AZ 85338-8530
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032828

From: David Bartlett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Bartlett
    1401 Stonington Drive
    Wilmington, NC 28412-5113
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032829

From: John Blanton
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 1:41pm
Subject: Against Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in against the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. I disappointed in 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I thoroughly approve of the 
decision by the remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia to further pursue this case.
    The settlement acheives nothing. It leaves Microsoft in position 
to use Microsoft's Windows operating system as an unfair leverage 
against their competitors (such as they did with Netscape) and will 
leave consumers with less services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, most, but not all, members of Citizens 
for a Sound Economy have been unrelenting in our opposition to the 
federal government's antitrust case against Microsoft. Myself, I 
thought the initial case did not go far enough. As someone who works 
daily with the internet and many different software packages, I have 
seen Microsoft use their knowledge of their own operating system to 
give themselves an unfair advantage over their competitors. By 
including more and more options, such as browsers and media players, 
in their OS and using their financial weight against OEMs (Original 
Equipment Manufacturers) they have eliminated many compeitiors. I 
ask you to reconsider your decision to settle this appropiate 
lawsuit against a successful and predatory company.
    Respectfully,
    John Blanton
    9421 Paigefield Ct.
    Richmond, VA 23229-6258
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032830

From: Mary Wofford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Mary Wofford
    1221 Charlane Ct.
    St. Louis, MO 63119-1103
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032831

From: Leonard Tillerson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Leonard Tillerson
    244 Osprey Circle
    St. Marys, GA 31558-4101
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032832

From: Ronald Huston
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:18pm

[[Page 29914]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ronald Huston
    1749 W. Placita de Vanegas
    Tucson, AZ 85704-1000
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032833

From: Brian Baumgartner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/17/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Baumgartner
22365 El Toro Road, #421
Lake Forest, CA 92630
January 17, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Brian J. Baumgartner



MTC-00032834

From: James Rolen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Rolen
    814 Sunshine Canyon Drive
    Boulder, CO 80302-9727
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032835

From: emilio despirito
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    emilio despirito
    234 croton ave
    bedford corners, NY 10549-4033
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032836

From: David Beatty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:

[[Page 29915]]

    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Beatty
    1106 Crossing Way NW
    Cleveland , TN 37312-3061
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032837

From: Gene Ruminski
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Gene Ruminski
    606 Pine Crest Drive
    Heathsville, VA 22473-4305
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032838

From: Karin Wilson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Karin Wilson
    8306 West 90th Avenue
    Westminster, CO 80021-4540
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032839

From: Mary Rogers
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Mary Rogers
    39 Windsor Drive
    Tuscaloosa, AL 35404-4335
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032840

From: Michael Pehel
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Pehel
    55 Hunters Lane
    South Huntington, NY 11746-3934
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032841

From: Henry Ayre

[[Page 29916]]

To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Henry Ayre
    P. O. Box 2571
    Soldotna, AK 99669-2571
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032842

From: LISA STEVENSON
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    LISA STEVENSON
    813 RUTLEDGE ROAD
    CHESAPEAKE, VA 23320-6021
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032843

From: michael lewis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    michael lewis
    3440 quebec ave so
    st louis park, MN 55426-4021
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032844

From: george flanigan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    george flanigan
    602 ironwood
    normal, IL 61761-5268
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032845

From: William Lewis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    William Lewis
    5595 Caribou Trail
    Stevensville, MI 49127-1310

[[Page 29917]]

    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032846

From: James Braly
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in total support of the recent settlement of the 
long-running, envy-driven antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. 
Department of Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft 
Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that 
decided to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case, 
I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general 
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this 
baseless and harmful case.
    The settlement is more than fair to all. It will allow 
Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system 
to incorporate their software programs and will give consumers like 
me more services and products to choose from.
    As you should be well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound 
Economy have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal 
government's antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
tens of thousands of activists like myself have called, emailed, 
visited, and sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to 
state attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's 
actions did not harm consumers, but provided us with great benefits 
by lowering the cost, increasing the availability of software 
products, and opening up an immediate worldwide access to knowledge. 
We have stressed that Microsoft is a much admired pioneer in the 
high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity with the Internet. Once again, I thank you for your 
decision to settle this unfortunate lawsuit against a highly 
successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Braly
    451 Crestdale Lane
    #163
    Las Vegas, NV 89144-1005
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032847

From: jim gaines
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company. As a long time 
member of the computer industry I have seen Microsofts service to 
the user community as a positive influence.
    Respectfully,
    jim gaines
    603 w13 ste 1a-113
    austin, TX 78701-1731
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032848

From: Ron Hendrix
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 3:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ron Hendrix
    1374 Redondo Ct.
    Los Lunas, NM 87031-9041
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032849

From: peter stebbins
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    peter stebbins
    32 bradford st
    concord, MA 01742-2940
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032850

From: Robert St. Louis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. I am also 
disappointed that this case was ever brought against Microsoft 
Corporation. It seems that this country is bent on punishing 
successful enterprises, usually at the urging of those that are less 
imaginative and hard working.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to

[[Page 29918]]

the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general 
offices explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, 
but provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert St. Louis
    #6 Ruby Mountain Estates
    Spring Creek, NV 89815-5655
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032851

From: Jean Castagno
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 5:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jean Castagno
    75 Fenwood Drive
    Old Saybrook, CT 06475-3031
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032852

From: Christopher Boggs
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 5:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Christopher Boggs
    120 Charles St.
    Sulphur Springs, TX 75482-3504
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032853

From: Ernest Thabet
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ernest Thabet
    3071 Clear Springs Court
    Charlottesville, VA 22911-7219
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032854

From: Amanda Jervis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Amanda Jervis
    2307 Englewood Ave
    Durham, NC 27705-4014
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032855

From: Joseph Hull
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been

[[Page 29919]]

unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's antitrust 
case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself 
have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Hull
    Whispering Sands Ranch
    CHS Star Route Box 66
    Castle Hot Springs, AZ 85342-0066
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032856

From: Jeff Farnham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 6:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jeff Farnham
    2353 Swindon Lane
    Kernersville, NC 27284-4336
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032857

From: Loy Puckett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Loy Puckett
    4108 S. Fall Ridge Dr.
    Columbia, MO 65203-6629
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032858

From: Sumner Kibbe
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Sumner Kibbe
    43 Horn Cove Road
    Southport, ME 04576
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032859

From: Candy Scott
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/17/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Candy Scott
317 White Oak Dr.
Lake Dallas, TX 75065
January 17, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense,

[[Page 29920]]

and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Candy Scott



MTC-00032860

From: steve raulerson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    steve raulerson
    11310 soforenko dr
    jacksonville, FL 32218-4133
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032861

From: Luke Elliott
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Luke Elliott
    1252 Yorkshire
    Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230-1106
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032862

From: Donald Phillips
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 7:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Donald Phillips
    1220 s. 28th. st.
    Broken Arrow, OK 74014-5015
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032863

From: Harold Beam
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Harold Beam
    6191 Mountainside Drive
    Hickory, NC 28601-9433
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032864

From: Christopher Woods
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft

[[Page 29921]]

Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that 
decided to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case, 
I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general 
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this 
baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Christopher Woods
    23911 Ash Lane
    Mission Viejo, CA 92691-3010
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032865

From: Christopher Phair
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more 
services and productsto choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal 
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
activists likemyself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters 
to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' 
general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm 
consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by lowering the cost 
and increasingthe availability of software products. We have 
stressed that
    Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
theirproducts increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Christopher Phair
    3217 St. Paul St.
    Baltimore, MD 21218-3326
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032866

From: Igor and Maria PALLEY
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 8:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    We are writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though we applaud 
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, we are thoroughly 
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more 
services and productsto choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal 
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
activists likeourselves have called, emailed, visited, and sent 
letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state 
attorneys' general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions 
did not harm consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by 
lowering the cost and increasingthe availability of software 
products. We have stressed thatMicrosoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that theirproducts increased our familiarity 
with the Internet.
    Once again, we thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Igor and Maria PALLEY
    18 Dean Street
    MADISON, NJ 07940-2215
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032867

From: Dolores Hasse
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more 
services and productsto choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal 
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
activists likemyself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters 
to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' 
general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm 
consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by lowering the cost 
and increasingthe availability of software products. We have 
stressed thatMicrosoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market 
and that theirproducts increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    What happened to free interprise and the desire to better one's 
selfwith your ideas?
    Respectfully,
    Dolores Hasse
    523 Opal Ave.
    Klamath Falls, OR 97601-1037
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032868

From: Carrie Allen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/17/02 10:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
runningantitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
stateattorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
thenine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federalgovernment's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointedthat remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbiahave decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitorsto use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate theirsoftware programs and will give consumers more 
services and productsto choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
havebeen unrelenting in our opposition to the federal 
government'santitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
activists likemyself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters 
to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' 
general officesexplaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm 
consumers, butprovided them with great benefits by lowering the cost 
and increasingthe availability of software products. We have 
stressed thatMicrosoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market 
and that theirproducts increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunatelawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Carrie Allen
    7912 Lowtide Circle

[[Page 29922]]

    Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2301
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032869

From: gleen murray
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 2:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    gleen murray
    201 w mary st
    bristol, VA 24201-4660
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032870

From: Andrew Grisham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 2:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew Grisham
    8713 Golden Gardens Dr. N. W.
    Seattle, WA 98117-3942
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032871

From: Jacquelyn Currie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 4:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jacquelyn Currie
    1933 Lakeshore Drive
    Hot Springs, AR 71913-5425
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032873

From: Cindy Schierling
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 5:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Cindy Schierling
    479 E. 341st Street
    Lebo, KS 66856-9119
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032874

From: james m nordlund
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 5:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
james m nordlund
p.o.b. 982
Lakin, KS 67860-0982
January 18, 2002
Ms.Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    Hello! I would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this

[[Page 29923]]

agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Viva la evolution, viva green party! reality Thanx for your 
attention and time.
    Sincerely,
    james m nordlund



MTC-00032875

From: George Buttery
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 6:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    George Buttery
    14458 Hillview Drive
    Largo, FL 33774-5033
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032876

From: ray lambright
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 6:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    ray lambright
    3158 massieville rd.
    chillicothe, OH 45601-8914
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032877

From: William Stoner
To: Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    William Stoner
    2020 Madison SE
    Grand Rapids, MI 49507-3152
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032878

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/18/02 9:00am
Subject: Microsoft lobbying opportunity . . .
    Gentlepeople:
    Public comment on the Microsoft anti-trust case officially 
closes January 28th. If, like me, you wish to make your ``two 
cents worth'' heard, simply email your comments to Attorney 
General John Ashcroft's anti-trust office at: 
[email protected]. You can also let Microsoft read your 
comments by emailing Microsoft at: [email protected] 
. Here are my comments.
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    From the beginning I have regarded the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft as bogus, just another tiresome example of socialist 
religiosity imposing their dogma of business virtue in the form of 
``perfect competition.''
    As a Tolerant Party supporter, I, of course, am a critic of 
unlimited government, of letting government do more than impose the 
limited virtue of peace through enforcement of universal, natural, 
human, individual rights.

[[Page 29924]]

    There is no right to be kept competitive, or to have others kept 
less competitive than one's self. The only legitimate competition-
related rights are those of freedom from fraud and defense of one's 
property rights. Bundling evermore software programs into one's 
browser, and not giving equal access to other firm's software, is a 
browser owner's property right rather than a violation of such.
    I hope that in this age of global terrorism by Al Queda's vice 
and virtue squads you and other government leaders can relearn the 
virtue of limited government. Just as we must defund terrorists by 
legalizing the drug usage from which they derive so much illicit 
income, we must stimulate the American economy by legalizing freedom 
of competition. It is time to stop imposing our ruling elite's 
religious convictions about unlimited perfection of society with 
their wars on drugs, unfair competition, pornography, poverty, ad 
nauseum.
    The militarization of society in pursuit of unlimited moral 
perfection leads to the destruction of such societies. When Rome 
abandoned their tolerant religious policies and began forcing every 
Roman to worship their new emperors as deities, Christianity became 
uniquely important a resistance force to Roman oppression as 
Christians alone refused to worship Rome's new emperor gods. 
Christians were actually persecuted as ``atheists'' 
because of their anti-emperor-deity attitude. If Rome's decline into 
unlimited ``virtue'' by government decree, the destruction 
of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union's similar 
decline should be instructive. However, Talliban Afghanistan's 
theocracy shows how few rulers learn this history lesson.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Bakhaus
    [email protected]



MTC-00032879

From: Samir Vyas
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 9:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Samir Vyas
39 E. 9th St #209
Indianapolis, IN 46204
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Samir Vyas



MTC-00032880

From: Davie Kimbrell
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 9:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support) Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Davie Kimbrell
    PO Box 333
    Southmont, NC 27351-0333
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032881

From: Daniel Bakstad
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/18/02 10:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 18, 2002
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As one of America's largest employers, Microsoft has been 
unwisely targeted in this antitrust dispute, especially when you 
consider the current state of the American economy. Microsoft is a 
successful company, built by the standards of the American dream. 
The attack on this company is an attack on the American dream.
    The settlement that has been reached is a good one in spite of 
the rather harsh terms that Microsoft will be complying with. For 
example, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for use by 
its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows'' operating system products-a first in an antitrust 
settlement. The most important thing, at this point, is just to get 
this litigation behind us so we can focus on more important issues.
    Thank you for all that you have done in bringing about this 
settlement. Your decision to settle has shown true foresight and 
wisdom on your part. Hopefully, the remaining nine states still 
pursuing litigation will soon see the wisdom of this settlement. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Bakstad
    1301 Stonehurst Dr
    Anderson, SC 29621



MTC-00032882

From: Irene Wice
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 11:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of

[[Page 29925]]

Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I 
applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the 
federal government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Irene Wice
    156 Windrose Driv e
    Thousand Oaks, CA 91320-3563
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032883

From: Janet Simonson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Janet Simonson
    PO Box 1235
    Suquamish, WA 98392-1235
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032884

From: Charlotte Worden
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlotte Worden
1821 2nd St
Lewiston, ID 83501
January 18, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charlotte Worden



MTC-00032885

From: Roger Cooper
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Roger Cooper
    336 Live Oak Dr.
    336 Live Oak Dr.
    Vero Beach, FL 32963-9677
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032886

From: Michelle Fogle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:13pm

[[Page 29926]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michelle Fogle
    24810 Northampton Forest Dr.
    Spring, TX 77389-2911
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032887

From: Jerry Jones
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jerry Jones
    5845 E Placita Alta Reposa
    Tucson, AZ 85750-1096
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032888

From: James Smith
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Smith
    2671 Warwick Circle, NE
    Atlanta, GA 30345-1633
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032889

From: CAROLE MARZ
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 2:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    CAROLE MARZ
    P. O. Box 174
    Chincoteague, VA 23336-0174
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032890

From: Stuart B. Holoman
To: To Whom It May Concern
Date: 1/18/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I understand that the address to which this email is being sent 
is the proper address for making comments relative to the DoJ 
proposed antitrust settlement with 9 states and Microsoft.
    I believe that the proposed settlement is adequate and 
sufficient to complete any dealings between the DoJ and Microsoft. 
It seems to me that the provisions of the agreement are tough, 
reasonable, and more than fair to all parties involved. I believe 
completing this settlement is in the public interest and certainly 
in my personal interest. It is time to let Microsoft get on with 
their business and improve their products, of which I am a 
continuous user. I believe it is time to allow Microsoft to stop 
expending massive funds paying lawyers to defend itself against 
these suits and allow those funds to be used for the improvement of 
Microsoft products.
    As a Microsoft stock holder, I believe that settlement of this 
action will improve my equities position.
    The proposed settlement is in my interest and the public 
interest. The District Court reviewing the case should so find.
    Thank you,
    Stuart Holoman
    2617 Countrywood Road
    Raleigh, NC 27615
    [email protected]



MTC-00032891

From: CONRAD ODENTHAL

[[Page 29927]]

To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 4:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    CONRAD ODENTHAL
    25575 SW LABROUSSE RD
    SHERWOOD, OR 97140-8807
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032892

From: Andrew Horras
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Andrew Horras
    7 Wheatfield Ct.
    Collinsville, IL 62234-2239
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032893

From: Harris Hall
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Harris Hall
    777 S. Orange Grove Blvd.
    Apartment #2
    Pasadena, CA 91105-1761
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032894

From: Rosemary Cleland
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 7:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Rosemary Cleland
    575 Hobson Street
    Unit C
    Bishop, CA 93514-2500
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032895

From: David Trend
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/18/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have

[[Page 29928]]

stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market 
and that their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Trend
    25 Lakeview Drive
    Skillman, NJ 08558-2406
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032896

From: Benjamin Gronke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/18/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Benjamin Gronke
993 East Madison Street
Waterloo, WI 53594
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance--the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    Prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, Osama Bin Laden had 
already carried out numerous attacks against U.S. embassies and 
military installations. However, prior to September 11, the United 
States was spending more money chasing Bill Gates than it was 
chasing Osama Bin Laden. IS IT NOT TRUE THAT BILL GATES GIVES 
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO CHARITY AND OSAMA BIN LADEN IS A TERRORIST? I 
AM VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT MY GOVERNMENT SPENT MORE MONEY TRYING TO 
DESTROY BILL GATES THAN IT DID TRYING TO DESTROY A MURDERER NAMED 
OSAMA BIN LADEN!
    Who's more dangerous? A businessman pursuing the American Dream, 
or a guy that runs a terrorist organization aimed at killing 
Americans? I think the majority of Americans would agree that a 
terrorist is more of a threat.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Benjamin Gronke



MTC-00032897

From: Les (038) Patricia Cowen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 5:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Les & Patricia Cowen
    421 N. Turkey Pine Loop
    Lecanto, FL 34461-8434
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032898

From: Thomas Dibble
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 5:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Dibble
21601 Redwing Ave
Jordan, MN 55352
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance--the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case--the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Dibble



MTC-00032899

From: Frank Corradino
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 6:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I write in support of the recent settlement of the long-running 
antitrust lawsuit between

[[Page 29929]]

the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys general and 
Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys 
general that decided to follow the federal government's lead and 
settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state 
attorneys general and the District of Columbia have decided to 
further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Frank Corradino
    8540 Clinton Ave.
    Rome, NY 13440-9354
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032900

From: hammondr
To: Judge Kollar-Kotally
Date: 1/19/02 6:57am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Honorable Judge Koller-Kotally:
    We are writing this as a concerned citizens to express our 
concerns in regards to the Microsoft Proposed Final Judgement.
    This Judgement does not deal with any of the three points with 
which
    Microsoft was viewed as having violated.
    1. Their illegal monopoly
    2. To deny Microsoft the fruits of its past violations, nor
    3. To prevent any such future anti-competitive activity.
    Microsoft should not be granted a government mandated monopoly.
    Therefore we urge you not to accept the Proposed Final 
Judgement.
    Sincerely,
    Rob and Shirley Hammond
    Permanent address in US
    312 Homecrest Dr
    Willow Street, PA 17584-9449
    In Austria,
    Ocwirkgasse 9/4/9
    A-1210 Vienna, Austria
    E-Mail [email protected]



MTC-00032901

From: Richard Moss
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 8:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Moss
    212 E. Mission St.
    Santa Barbara, CA 93101-1045
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032902

From: Irving Smith
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 1:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irving Smith
1618 Florida Ave.
Woodbridge, VA 22191
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Irving and Midge Smith -



MTC-00032903

From: S. Currie
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this extremely costly case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give

[[Page 29930]]

consumers more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, people like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    S. Currie
    34300 Wallis
    Clinton Twp, MI 48035-3684
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032904

From: William Barrington
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    William Barrington
    1506 Keel Drive
    Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-1241
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032905

From: Bruce Butts
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bruce Butts
4908 Breeze Way
Dumfries, VA 22026-1253
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Butts



MTC-00032906

From: Robert Goodwyn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 2:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Goodwyn
4202 Pickering Place
Alexandria, VA 22309-2821
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of

[[Page 29931]]

America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers 
will be able to select a variety of pre-installed software on their 
computers. It will also be easier to substitute competitors' 
products after purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and 
software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows 
XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert T. Goodwyn



MTC-00032907

From: Thomas Fraser
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Fraser
1604 E. Texas Ave.
Baytown, Tx 77520
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas B. Fraser



MTC-00032908

From: Gwen Luhring
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/19/02 4:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gwen Luhring
190 Madrone Ridge Dr
Grants Pass, OR 97527-9144
January 19, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. This case was supposedly 
brought on behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of 
litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a 
hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, the country 
needs the economic stability this settlement can provide. This 
settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change. It's time to move on to other matters. Settle this 
case.
    Sincerely,
    Gwen R. Luhring



MTC-00032909

From: Nina McCorkle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/19/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Nina McCorkle
    637 Eisenhower St.
    Davis, CA 95616-3030
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032910

From: Don Levy, M.A.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/20/02 1:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlepeople:
    I find it very disturbing that in the midst of being found a 
monopoly, Microsoft demonstrated that even while under the close 
scrutiny of the court it cannot resist trying to corner another 
market segment: the schools. While it's true that this ploy was 
rejected by the court as merely a hooded effort to knock Apple and 
others out of the arena (in the guise of doing something for poor 
children and at almost no real expense to Microsoft), I wonder if 
the court can continue to be eager to not split Microsoft up, given 
that kind of brazen disregard for the laws concerned with predatory 
behaviors that can destroy competitors and damage the interests of 
the public, both consumers and organizations.
    Please reconsider your earlier backing away from dividing MS 
into at least two entities, with tight monopoly controls. We deserve 
competition, not what it appears we may get.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Levy
    Loa Angeles, CA



MTC-00032911

From: Dean Nervik
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 3:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 29932]]

Dean Nervik
Route 8
Speculator, NY 12164
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dean Nervik



MTC-00032912

From: Edward M. Walsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 5:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward M. Walsh
6 Colonial Oaks Drive
Oak Ridge , NJ 07438-9158
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edward M. Walsh



MTC-00032913

From: Richard Peck
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/20/02 6:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Peck
    1822 Jackson Road
    Penfield, NY 14526-1216
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032914

From: Stephen Schiller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 7:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Schiller
10920 Thanlet Lane
Reston, VA 20190-3921
January 20, 2002

[[Page 29933]]

Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen H. Schiller



MTC-00032915

From: MICHAEL PERRIN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 9:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MICHAEL PERRIN
31111 INDUSTRIAL DR.
LIVONIA, MI 48150
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    MICHAEL PERRIN



MTC-00032916

From: Mike Durand
To: Attrny Gen Ashcroft
Date: 1/20/02 11:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard M. Durand
4109 Yarmouth Road
New Bern N.C. 28562
Home Phone 252-635-1503
January 20, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I have been a supporter of Microsoft from the very start of 
these investigations and I am very gratified to see that the Justice 
Department has finally decided to settle their antitrust suit. I 
think it is about time we complete this case and move forward, as 
three years was just too long.
    I hope that the Justice Department appreciates how much that 
Microsoft has sacrificed in order to reach a settlement and bring 
this proceedings to an end. By giving up access to its software with 
out recrimination as well as agreeing to design future versions of 
Windows easier to use with competitors products, Microsoft is 
forgoing an enormous amount of potential profit. Anyone who thinks 
that the suit should continue after seeing the terms of this 
settlement must be out to profit off of Microsoft's hard work.
    It is a shame that nine states still refuse to settle. By trying 
to support their own state budget shortfalls, they are hurting their 
own constituents. I hope that their voters will make them realize 
the error of their ways directly in order to end any further 
litigation against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Richard M. Durand



MTC-00032917

From: Thomas McWilliams
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/20/02 4:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this

[[Page 29934]]

baseless case. The settlement is fair to all. It will allow 
Microsoft's competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system 
to incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas McWilliams
    One Cessna Lane
    Downers Grove, IL 60516-4901
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032918

From: Charles DeBrett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/20/02 5:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charles DeBrett
    P.O. Box 1475
    Cave Junction, OR 97523-1475
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032919

From: Robert Martin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 7:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Martin
270 Decatur Road
Stafford, VA 22554
January 20, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    I also believe the cost of this lengthy litigation should ome 
out of themonies Microsoft is paying in this case. The State will 
settle their disputes faster if they know the longer they resist the 
less money they will receive from the settlement pot!
    Sincerely,
    Robert Martin



MTC-00032920

From: B. Wehrung
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/20/02 10:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
B. Wehrung
702 Irving Royal Oak, MI 48067-2879
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    The message below was composed by Citizens Against Government 
Waste and seems to be based on the idea that it cost a lot of money 
to sue Microsoft Corp. I believe it was money well spent and it is 
misguided to let them off so lightly, with a settlement that is so 
favorable to the company. You can read the message if you like but 
DO NOT APPROVE the settlement.
    Brendan Wehrung
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer

[[Page 29935]]

manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    B. Wehrung



MTC-00032921

From: Doug Skoglund
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/21/02 2:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To: [email protected]
Reference: Microsoft Settlement
    In the Competitive Impact Statement, section I, Nature and 
Purpose of the Proceeding, I quote the following:
    The Proposed Final Judgment will provide, certain and effective 
remedy for consumers by imposing injunctive relief to halt 
continuance and prevent recurrence of the violations of the Sherman 
Act by Microsoft that were upheld by the Court of Appeals and 
restore competitive conditions to the market.
    Now, it doesn't take a legal genius to read the text of the 
Proposed Final Judgment and then have some serious doubt about the 
accuracy of the above statement. My review of the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment, RPFJ, yields a great deal of confusion caused by 
questionable definitions, exceptions, loopholes and other assorted 
legal maneuvers that may or may not be relevant.
    While I see the RPFJ as a great big expensive joke that does 
nothing for the micro-computer business nor for the larger society, 
as an ISV, Independent Software Vendor, I feel qualified to state 
that the RPFJ does nothing to limit the enormous power of Microsoft 
and its control over the business. While the object of these 
proceedings is the punishment of Microsoft for past anti-trust 
violations and prescription for future activity necessary to restore 
competition, one should never loose sight of the tremendous 
contribution Mr. Bill Gates and company have made to the development 
of the PC business.
    Let me repeat, one should never loose sight of the tremendous 
contribution Mr. Bill Gates and company have made to the development 
of the PC business. With a few exceptions, most everyone in the 
business has operated within the shadow of Microsoft, which means 
that, in addition to the many benefits, we've also been aware of 
much of Microsoft's suspect activity, and we also were very well 
aware of the consequences of ``whistle blowing''. It 
should be understood that this general atmosphere of fear is more 
important in limiting competition than any of the overt activity 
that is the object of these proceedings.
    I think that most people would recognize that the entire PC 
business has grown as a function of and in the image of Microsoft. 
But, it has outgrown even the imagination of Mr. Gates. It must be 
broken free to allow growth in areas and ways that may be contrary 
to his philosophy. Mr. Gates has done a remarkable job, we have made 
him a very rich man, but it is time for others to get into the game. 
It would be nice if Mr. Gates would allow the transition to occur 
peacefully, he should have negotiated a settlement with Judge 
Jackson long ago, but since he continues to resist the inevitable, 
it's up to you, Judge Kollar-Kotelly and you, Mr. Charles A. James.
    I want to emphasize that this entire proceeding has suffered 
from non-participation by members of the PC business. I can imagine 
the personnel of the Department of Justice being more than a little 
piqued by the lack of qualified support from the industry. Yet it is 
easy to understand the reluctance of industry members to pitch in, 
what with careers on the line if the government lost this case. It 
would seem, when one views the complete capitulation of the 
Department of Justice, that the industry members have made the right 
choice, If the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is accepted by the 
court, the people will have every right to conclude that Mr. Bill 
Gates and company are more powerful than the United States 
Government. Hey folks, you must not allow that to happen!!!!
    Plaintiff Litigating States'' Remedial Proposals Plaintiff 
Litigating States'' Opposition to Microsoft Corporation's 
Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order Exhibits to Plaintiff 
Litigating States'' Opposition to Microsoft Corporation's 
Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order Now, here are three legal 
documents that I can understand. I refer to all three since each has 
a way of describing things that helps promote understanding. Not 
being a legal expert maybe it's something like programming, you need 
the program and then you need the documentation to explain what the 
program does and how to use it.
    It would be far too easy to say that I support the Litigating 
States and end this document right here; however, I want to compare 
my conclusions, as expressed in a previous post with the 
``Exhibits'' conclusions on a couple of very key, to me, 
points. One example: (my thoughts) (From definition of Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product) A Non-Microsoft Middleware product is any 
product that both meets the definition of Non-Microsoft Middleware 
and has at least one million copies distributed in the United States 
within the previous year* * *
    * * * Without limitations on the definition, any 
software developer would be able to claim that any software product 
was middleware and thereby insist on exercising options and 
alternatives provided by the Proposed Final Judgment.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that I cannot expect 
protection from Microsoft illegal tactics against my 
``Middleware''application purely because it is new and 
therefore did not distribute one million copies last year. (29) 
(from Exhibit) the RPFJ's middleware definitions are drawn too 
narrowly, excluding from protection competitors of Microsoft in 
critical middleware markets and excluding from the restrictions of 
the judgment important Microsoft products--for example, 
(a)software cannot qualify as a ``Non-Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' unless at least one million copies were distributed 
in the U.S. in the previous year, meaning that by definition nascent 
or developing middleware threats receive no protection under the 
user configuration flexibility remedy,*  *
    Another Example: (my thoughts)Subsection HI.C.3. requires that 
Microsoft permit OEMs to configure their products to launch Non-
Microsoft Middleware automatically at the conclusion of the first 
boot sequence* * *
    The only limitation Microsoft may impose on OEMs in this 
circumstance is that any Non-Microsoft Middleware the OEM configures 
to launch automatically cannot display a user interface that is not 
of similar size and shape* * *
    This really doesn't make much sense as the primary purpose for 
any competitive product might very well be to present a whole new 
user interface.(10) (from Exhibit)the RPFJ imposes unjustifiable 
qualifications in the provisions that appear to provide for 
flexibility in product configuration(e.g., (i) Microsoft can limit 
the addition of icons, shortcuts and menu entries for non-Microsoft 
products to only those places where Microsoft has decided to promote 
a Microsoft product with similar functionality (thus blocking such 
additions if Microsoft does not make that decision and/or does not 
offer a competing product), and (ii) the automatic launching of 
competing software may be prohibited if such software displays a 
user interface that is not of a similar size and shape to the 
interface displayed by the equivalent Microsoft Software or a 
Microsoft product would not otherwise launch automatically)
    Critique of Remedial Proposals ``.
    I don't pretend to have the knowledge and expertise to critique 
the legal aspects of this document.
    I do, however, have substantial engineering background and 
programming experience to allow me to comment on some portions of 
the document and to emphasize things that I perceive to be logical 
shortcomings.
    Definitions
    This section may appear at the rear of a legal document; 
however, since all else

[[Page 29936]]

depends onproper definitions, I want to discussthis subject first.
    ``Applications''--Programs that perform specific 
tasks, such as accounting, word processing, or communications or any 
other task that the user might require from a computer. Applications 
connect to the operating system by accessing or calling APIs.
    ``API'' or ``Application Programming 
Interface''--Program elements, routines or sections of 
program code that are callable or otherwise accessible by other 
program elements and/or applications for the purpose of performing 
specific steps or portions of a task. Since one API can call other 
APIs they may range from the very simple to the very complicated, 
but, it should be emphasized that APIs are never accessed by end 
users. (Some method of controlling acceptability of APIs is 
required--see some of the discussion below)
    ``Operating System''--Program that controls the 
low level processes of a computer and mediates between the 
application program and the drivers that control the computer 
hardware. The operating system schedules and controls the use of the 
system's hardware resources. These hardware resources may include 
memory, disk drives, printers, and CRTs. The Goal of a good 
operating system is to simplify the use of the computer by providing 
a common set of practical, easy-to-use commands (APIs) that bridge 
the gap between the application programs and the actual physical 
processing of the computer.
    ``Middleware''--A non-Microsoft application that, 
in addition to performing specific tasks,exposes its own APIs for 
use by application developers. For the purpose of these proceedings, 
the definition of middleware must necessarily be short and specific. 
If one does a search of the Internet, one will find that the term 
has many meanings, and thus becomes meaningless for legal purposes. 
In addition, Microsoft should not be allowed to use the term to 
describe any Microsoft software because that only clouds the issue 
of ownership or source of a specific API. In other words, all APIs 
that Microsoft chooses to release should be considered part of the 
operating system.
    ``Interpreter''--An application that can perform 
specific tasks under control of a separate document or script. Basic 
started as an interpreted language, but with the development of 
compilers, that Basic script is generally converted into a binary 
coded program. Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator and Java are 
more properly classified as Interpreters. Since a script can only 
give instructions to an interpreter, I suppose that Java might be 
called middleware if the script is compiled into a program that is 
actually run and then calls APIs itself. The distinguishing 
characteristic is determined by which segment is executed under the 
control of the computer's central processing unit, cpu.
    ``Operating System Product''--This is actually a 
collection of files that make up the Operating System, some 
associated applications and other related files. Since the basic 
operating system is useless to the user, some applications must be 
included,thus the need for this definition. And since Microsoft has 
chosen to obfuscate the meaning of operating system by it's 
philosophy of ``integration'', it has become necessary for 
the court to decide the meaning of this term and control it's future 
usage.
    I don't intend to rewrite all the definitions, but, if one 
accepts the above definitions, one can readily visualize the impact 
on the balance of the court proceedings. Let's look at some 
interesting information, developed by installing various Microsoft 
operating systems, in turn, on the same machine.
    Sorry, Windows XP would not install on this machine since it 
requires 64 Mb memory and this machine only had 32 Mb and an 
additional 32 Mb would have cost $100. (there's a limit to my 
contribution to these proceedings) Besides, these numbers allow me 
to make my point. Microsoft should have settled these anti-trust 
matters years ago and they would have been able to pursue business 
without governmental interference. Instead they chose to fight and 
they lost. Legally, they are a monopoly and they have violated the 
law. Their unwillingness to settle on reasonable terms necessitate 
that they become a regulated monopoly. They must be required to 
document all those files and directories so that a base point can be 
established to firm up the meaning of ``Operating System 
Product''. Future additions to the basic definition must be 
controlled by some kind of regulating body.
    Using the above definitions, MS-DOS is an operating system, 
Windows for Workgroups might have been classified as an application 
because the machine was booted in MS-DOS and W4W was run separately; 
however, since it exposes APIs and is a Microsoft product it thus 
becomes an operating system. Windows 95/98/2000/XP are operating 
systems (after determination of a base point) because the machine is 
booted directly into the respective system.
    If we use Windows 95 to determine the base point, Internet 
Explorer, an application by definition, is not part of the operating 
system since it was introduced separately and then included with 
Windows 98. In summary, Microsoft lost the right to ``integrate 
applications into the operating system'', by violating the law. 
If not this, then other application developers deserve the right to 
have their similar applications integrated into the operating system 
also.
    Mandatory Disclosure to Ensure Interoperability
    This section of the Remedial Proposals needs considerable work 
in that it fails to recognize the existence of Microsoft Development 
Network, MSDN, and more importantly, it fails to deal with the 
quality of such disclosure. It should be understood that Microsoft 
distributes all (I think) technical information to subscribers 
dependent upon subscription level. In other words, you purchase the 
level of information you require, no matter your other relationship 
to Microsoft. I see this as satisfactory, if the court determines 
that Microsoft personnel also use the MSDN documentation. The 
difficulty with the present system is the method of developing APIs. 
It is obvious to developers using MSDN that many APIs were developed 
for Microsoft application use and then documented and added to MSDN. 
This, of course, means that Microsoft personnel have been using the 
API for considerable time before outsiders have had access.
    A well controlled monopolist should be expected to develop APIs 
for broad usage and let inside programmers determine usage the same 
as outside ones. The broad usage requirement should be interpreted 
to mean that the basic lowest level API must be documented. I quote 
from ``MFC Programming with Visual C++ 6 Unleashed'', 
copyright 1999 by Sams Publishing. The Microsoft Foundation Classes 
are an excellent example of how an object-oriented approach to 
packaging software functionality can lead to code reuse, reduced 
application complexity, and in the end, a more efficient software 
development environment.
    MFC has been around for seven years now. The first version of 
MFC was release with version 7 of Microsoft's 16-bit C/C++ compiler, 
and it represented little more than a wrapper around the Window GDI 
(Graphics Device Interface) call. The author goes on to emphasize 
the benefits of MFC to the programmer and de-emphasize the costs to 
the ultimate user.
    Programs, including code stored in associated files, are larger 
(amount of memory required) and operate slower. Microsoft has 
developed additional features/dialects (?) such as COM, ATL, .NET 
aimed at the benefits to the programmer without much consideration 
for the user, after all, additional memory and disc space is cheap 
and faster computers are being developed all the time. Microsoft has 
tended to use these higher level approaches in their applications, 
and then document the higher level APIs. If the propose of these 
proceedings is to restore competition, Microsoft must be forced to 
document the entire structure of a higher level API, which means 
that the basic API should be demonstrated in a sample program 
written in C/C++ without all the frills.
    As a matter of fact, the sample program should be capable of 
compiling with a competitive compiler. One should be aware of the 
hidden advantage Microsoft accrues with this programming philosophy. 
The more an individual programmer and a programming organization 
ties itself to MFC and these other dialects the more ``locked 
in'' they become and the more their programs look and feel like 
Microsoft programs. True competition with Microsoft can only occur 
at the basic API level.
    Internet Browser Open-Source License
    This provision is unnecessary since the Browser APIs are now 
available through MSDN. What is required, however, is more control 
over the size of acceptable segmentation. Any programmer could take 
a complete application, enclose it in a DLL, dynamic link library, 
set up the call linkage and then call it from a skeleton 
application. The application now becomes middleware; but, the 
purpose has been compromised. Calling the resultant API would be no 
different than running the original program. The segmentation, must 
be small enough to allow another programmer to use some of the APIs 
to build a distinctly different application.

[[Page 29937]]

    What is needed about Internet Explorer is better segmentation. 
For example, there is an API, Navigate, part of Web Browser Control, 
that includes both the access to a web page and the display of that 
web page. The net effect of this shortcoming is to prevent a 
programmer from controlling the access to the Internet. In other 
words, use of this API might very well allow Microsoft to include 
Internet access desired by Microsoft without the users, or the 
programmers knowledge. Oh, Microsoft might argue my point as some of 
the Internet calls are available for examination; however, they will 
have to explain why *ALL* of the calls are not available.
    Internal Compliance
    The Remedial Proposal devotes considerable words to the subject 
of compliance including the appointment of a Special Master. I only 
wish to add to these recommendations by pointing out a way of 
developing a measurement mechanism that can be used to establish 
goals and measure progress towards those goals, assuming that the 
big broad general goal is to improve service to the customer.
    The philosophy is simple;--execution, well, that may be 
another thing. A proper amount of ``encouragement'' from 
the court should turn the trick.
    All that is required is a monitored, measured, Internet support 
forum/s. There are all kinds of forums and chat groups on the 
Internet right now, some monitored, others unmonitored. I am 
speaking about monitoring by qualified, empowered, personnel, 
qualified to answer many questions and empowered to get answers from 
more qualified personnel if necessary.
    But, far more important is the measurement mechanism. Since each 
request/question/complaint is a single document, it can be 
classified by the submitter, dated and timed by the computer. The 
response can be classified by the respondent, dated and timed by the 
computer. The software can then keep track of response times, 
quantities entered, closed and still open, by category, on a daily, 
weekly or monthly basis. This type of system could replace the 
Periodic Reports called for in the Remedial Proposal.
    Windows Operating System Licenses
    Mandatory Disclosure to Ensure Interoperability
    Intellectual Property Rights
    These sections seem to be unnecessarily complicated, using terms 
like OEM, Covered OEM, Third-Part Licensee, which are all meant to 
exclude. I would think that subscription to MSDN could be the sole 
determinant controlling licensing and the distribution of technical 
information. Subscription to MSDN at the Operating System level or 
above should include one copy of each current operating system with 
the right to purchase, and re-sell, additional copies according to a 
discount schedule based upon yearly quantity. Many computers are 
assembled by small companies that should be able to re-sell licenses 
to the operating system.
    In addition, a ``fair use'' type of clause should be 
required in software licensing that would permit installation on 
multiple machines used by a single or limited number (family) of 
individuals. Most companies allow this since enforcement is very 
difficult, but Microsoft has chosen to restrict this kind of use 
with very intrusive procedures. I recognize that this might be a 
matter for Congress, but, I wanted to bring up the subject anyway. 
Under the title of ``Equal Access'', Microsoft is allowed 
to restrict access to information about any bona fide joint 
development effort. I would think that joint development efforts 
should be restricted to applications only and even then be under 
very strict control. This exception is too large a loop hole to be 
allowed a monopoly.
    Obviously the structure and pricing of MSDN should be controlled 
by the court.
    Respectfully submitted:
    Doug Skoglund
    Sands Software, Inc.
    14766 Endicott Way
    Apple Valley, MN 55124-6405
    952/423-3041
    P.S. Bill Gates is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!!!!!!!!!! 
Have I got your attention????????
    First, I don't pretend to be some sort of all knowing guru with 
the things that I have written or will write. I do, however, claim 
to be pretty good at distilling the wisdom out of things that other 
people have said and written. Let me illustrate: The following from 
a column by Jim Rapoza titled ``Microsoft Still Suffers 
Insecurity Complex'', posted on eWeek web site, January 7, 
2002.
    When Microsoft introduced active content in Outlook, we, along 
with many in the security community, said it would create a security 
risk. But Microsoft blew these warnings off as theoretical and, 
instead, touted the gains that would be made by making mail more 
automatically responsive... ...I think that worries about potential 
security risks will always be pushed aside to make way for latest 
cool, new feature. True, Jim, but one might say that Microsoft knows 
what sells. Next, let me set the framework for further discussion. I 
can imagine that most every business person has contemplated the 
question of honesty vs. success. She/he discovers very early that 
when a business is small, fighting for survival, total and complete 
honesty will get you nowhere. Growth requires aggressive action to 
get that next larger contract or chunk of business.
    And that aggressive action means the acceptance of a few small 
lies (or information not disclosed). I'll bet that the early 
relationship between Microsoft and IBM had its share of less than 
100% honesty. I don't need to beat the honesty point to death, 
except to say that we will get disagreement all over the place 
before we settle down and except the wisdom of the above.
    The point that is missing is that the requirement for honesty 
increases with success, and that is the critical point that Bill 
Gates has missed. He continues to act as though he believed that 
strategy as a successful company must be the same that was necessary 
to become successful.
    Of course, boiling this all down to honesty is far too simple. 
That's the reason for using the security example above. During the 
growth process, it's the cool, new feature that sells. What Bill 
Gates fails to recognize and that Jim Rapoza, as one member of the 
business, is saying is, ``Microsoft, it's time to truly start 
considering the needs of your customers. Security is important, and 
you can't continue to ignore the warnings''.
    To emphasize my point, I think that we have to see these anti-
trust proceedings for what they really are. Most people would 
concede that Bill Gates could have settled this whole thing a few 
years back and that Microsoft would be free to conduct business 
without much governmental interference. Remember, the anti-trust 
laws exist to protect the consumer and that the government really 
does represent the people. The government had to step in because Mr. 
Gates failed to transition his company from aggressive corporate 
fighter to good corporate citizen. He has had all kinds of notice, 
if he had only mined the wisdom from the words of his critics 
instead of viewing everything through his paranoid tinted glasses.
    As a matter of fact, Mr. Gates can still wake up and settle this 
matter, but he must allow the government to win. There is no 
question that Microsoft has the power and resources to beat the 
government in the short run, but Mr. Gates must recognize that he is 
really flipping the finger at the consumer if he does. Remember, the 
government is us, the people, the consumers. I suspect that we will 
get the last laugh over a longer period of time. Since settling as 
spelled out in the RPFJ is a win for Microsoft, the settlement must 
be according to the Plaintiff Litigating States'' Remedial 
Proposals, with my revisions, of course. There is nothing in these 
proposals and revisions designed to hurt Microsoft.
    On the contrary, they are only detailing changes necessary for 
Microsoft to become a good corporate citizen. All of these things 
should have been incorporated by Microsoft over the years in what 
should have been a natural transition to a more honest, ethical 
operation.
    One final point, the market wants a single, stable, reliable, 
secure operating system, under the control of a strong, honest, 
ethical, reliable monopoly. True competition in applications 
requires nothing less. Microsoft could fill that need; however, past 
performance indicates that the Microsoft monopoly needs to be 
regulated. The Department of Justice, the litigating Attorneys 
General and the Courts must get that point across to Mr. Bill Gates 
and company. The previous does not mean that there is not room for 
other operating systems. There will always be niches open to other 
approaches and nothing to stop alternatives from out-performing the 
established monopoly. After all, the non-monopolies have more 
freedom of action. That, of course, is the idea behind controlling a 
monopoly.
    Do I have a dog in this fight??--You betcha!!
    Of course, I have a vested interest in the outcome of these 
proceedings, but then, who doesn't?? I believe that my Personal 
Digital Multimedia ScrapBook, PDMSB, is an application that is built 
upon an engine that, in the hands of Microsoft or a competitor, 
could open a whole new generation of application development on the 
desktop. The RPFJ contains exclusions that would inhibit the growth 
of this engine as a true contender;

[[Page 29938]]

however the Remedial Proposals seem to provide protection for any 
potential competitor.
    I said previously that Bill Gates was wrong. His present 
emphasis on the Internet seems to have left the industry with the 
attitude that Microsoft owns the Desktop and that further 
development in this area is over. Wrong, the Internet, while very 
important, will never replace the Desktop in the minds of the 
average user. After all, the whole (DeskTop) is equal to the sum of 
its parts (Internet activity vs. Local activity). I repeat, the 
PDMSB engine in the hands of someone like AOL Time Warner, for 
example, could open a whole new generation of application 
development on the desktop.
    Because PDMSB is still a work in process, the basic software has 
been available at http://www.pdmsb.com for some four years, while 
copies of various contact attempts have been available at http://
www.ifihadmyway.com. If anyone would like an interesting view of the 
status of the PC business I would suggest interviewing some of 
addressees of those contact attempts, (under oath, maybe?).
    Obviously, Microsoft has every right to make incorrect 
decisions. The difficulty comes from the fact that as the monopoly 
supplier of the dominant operating system, the entire industry is 
dragged in a direction they may not want to go. Just as the Remedial 
Proposals require Microsoft to support old versions of operating 
systems, MSDN must be required to support the basic APIs to allow 
application developers to develop competitive applications. Whether 
I'm right or wrong is of no matter, what does matter; however, is 
that present Microsoft dominance prohibits open debate of my and/or 
many other ideas. Of course, I want to sell my software, but I'm 
just small potatoes, how many others might have a dog in this fight 
also?? Even the top management of AOL Time Warner were unwilling to 
investigate my proposals. I would hope that the business could be 
more open than that. Rejection after evaluation is one thing, being 
ignored is another!!



MTC-00032922

From: Deanna Tachna
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 3:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Deanna Tachna
1137 Stanley
Birmingham, MI 48009-1949
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Deanna Tachna



MTC-00032923

From: R. Suter Hudson
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/21/02 4:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please read the Microsoft Word 2000 document relative to the 
Microsoft Settlement.
    Thank you.



MTC-00032923 0001

R. Suter Hudson
2714 Royal Road
Lancaster, PA 17603
January 21, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my feelings about the recent events in 
the Microsoft anti-trust litigation. I am glad to see that a 
settlement has finally been reached. However, I can't understand how 
this case could be prolonged any further. The settlement was 
negotiated with the help of mediators provided by the courts, so 
obviously the settlement should be fair.
    Microsoft did have some problems, but they are now being 
resolved by way of this settlement. They are allowing their 
competitors to use the technologies that they invented, creating a 
more competitive environment. They are also allowing computer makers 
to install other products on Windows when they distribute the 
computers. All of this seems more than reasonable. I used 
Microsoft's products in my job as a Research Scientist and now use 
them at home. I like the fact that all of my programs are compatible 
with one another and that I can easily manipulate them. Why would I 
want to change that by using a combination of competitive products 
that aren't even compatible?
    Please do your part in ending this lawsuit, for the interest of 
consumers and the entire economy. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    R. Suter Hudson
    CC:
    Senator Rick Santorum
    Representative George W. Gekas



MTC-00032923--0002



MTC-00032924

From: Orna Benison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have

[[Page 29939]]

stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market 
and that their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. 
Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Orna Benison
    145 Westminster St
    Hartford, CT 06112-1372
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032925

From: James Leydon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 8:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Leydon
408 Chandlee Drive
Berwyn, PA 19312
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    JamesPatrickLeydon



MTC-00032926

From: leonard judickas
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    leonard judickas
    30 s.walla walla dr
    cherokee village, AR 72529-2005
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032927

From: Patrick Whalen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 8:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patrick Whalen
P O BOX 713
Boonton, NJ 07005-0713
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public

[[Page 29940]]

interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick Whalen



MTC-00032928

From: Joseph Ezar
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joseph Ezar
    32833 Merritt Drive
    Westland, MI 48185-1558
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032929

From: David Upton
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 9:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Upton
    200 Ridgeway
    St. Joseph, MI 49085-1000
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032930

From: Harry Beckner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Harry Beckner
    2712 Casey Key Road
    Nokomis, FL 34275-3358
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032931

From: Susan Wilson
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/21/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see attached letter.



MTC-00032931 0001

Susan Wilson
3018 Pickfair Street
Orlando, Florida 32803-6831
January 20,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    It is my belief that the Microsoft Antitrust case should never 
have been brought to court. Microsoft's innovations and marketing 
techniques have allowed this company to climb to the top of its 
industry and the success that Microsoft has accomplished is well 
deserved. We would not have seen the tremendous growth of the 
Internet and the great numbers of home computers without the 
innovations and uniformity of the Windows platforms. For the past 
three years, litigation has stunted Microsoft's business potential a 
great deal and to carry this case on further would be a highly 
unnecessary course of action. Litigating Microsoft does not come at 
an easy cost as this case has been very time- consuming and cost a 
great deal of money. In some very key issues, I believe it has 
caused more harm than good as would anyone who is familiar with 
computing prior to the great growth of Microsoft.
    The Department of Justice and Microsoft have disputed this case 
for over three years now with the intent to appease all of the 
parties involved. Microsoft has agreed to several terms beyond the 
scope of this case in order to continue new product development, 
which shows Microsoft's willingness to compromise. Some specific 
terms range anywhere from allowing computer makers to promote the 
competition within the Windows configuration to supplying the 
competition with necessary interfaces and protocols that will 
enable-software compatibility.
    These agreements have come as a result of heavy dispute and much 
compromise and will serve the best interest of all involved. Thank 
you for consideration for the public good.--
    Sincerely,
    Susan Wilson
    cc: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00032931--0002



MTC-00032932

From: Donna Price
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's

[[Page 29941]]

Windows operating system to incorporate their software programs and 
will give consumers more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Donna Price
    33 McConnell Lane
    Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5831
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032933

From: joy schroeder
To: [email protected]@integw
Date: 1/21/02 11:18am
Subject: lawsuit
CC: Microsoft ATR



MTC-00032933 0001

3150 Candlewood Way
Sierra Vista, AZ 85650
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Three years of lawsuits against Microsoft and a settlement has 
finally occurred in the antitrust case. I am glad to see that 
Microsoft will not be broken up, but I do think that the terms of 
the settlement are too harsh. Microsoft has demonstrated no 
monopolistic tendencies since it has always delivered quality 
products at reasonable prices. It has also not infringed on my 
rights as a consumer, since I have on occasion bought other software 
that I thought was better.
    The terms of the settlement are more than fair and should 
appease all parties involved in dispute. Competitors will now be 
granted broad new rights to configure Windows so they can promote 
their own products and they will be given internal interfaces and 
protocols that Microsoft has for its Windows operating systems. 
These concessions and more represent a huge advantage to competitors 
and so there is not need for further litigation. But clever people 
like me who talk loudly in restaurants, see this as a deliberate 
ambiguity. A plea for justice in a mechanized society.
    It is in the best interests of the American people for the 
settlement to be finalized and to allow the competitors to duke it 
out on the playing field. Please make the right decision in the 
coming months. Thank you for your time. Ecce homo ergo elk. La 
Fontaine knew his sister, and knew her bloody well. But is suspense, 
as Hitchcock states, in the box. No, there isn't room, the 
ambiguity's put on weight.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00032933--0002

    1 of 2
    02/06/2002 9:16 AM
    file:///C/win/temp/tmp.htm
    Joy Schroeder
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://
explorer.msn.com.



MTC-00032933--0003

    ??of2
    02/06/2002 9:16 AM



MTC-00032934

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/21/02 11:45am
Subject: Agreement with Microsoft
    I feel the Agreement with Microsoft is fair and proper for all, 
and wish for the agreement to be accepted and stop this expensive 
litigation, It is fair to all.
    Howard F. Renforth
    144 Crosstide Circle
    Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082-4028
    (904) 285 9302



MTC-00032935

From: Robert Minnoe
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Robert Minnoe
    220 Channel Run Drive
    New Bern, NC 28562-8915
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032936

From: Paul Borgen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 2:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Paul Borgen
    3255 115th Ave NE, #153
    Bellevue, WA 98004-7795
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032937

From: Cheryl Larson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 2:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers,

[[Page 29942]]

but provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Cheryl Larson
    5810 S. 232nd Place
    Kent, WA 98032-6475
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032938

From: Carol Carlisle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Carol Carlisle
    1916 E 10th st
    The Dalles, OR 97058-3967
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032939

From: Eugene Mouncer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Eugene Mouncer
    P.O. Box 117
    Satsop, WA 98583-0117
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032940

From: Donna Lange
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Donna Lange
    15 Greenacres Rd.
    Riverside, WA 98849-9625
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032941

From: Judith Guse
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Judith Guse
    1515 S. Garfield PL
    Kennewick, WA 99337-4063
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032942

From: Leslie Griffin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal

[[Page 29943]]

government's antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, 
activists like myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent 
letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state 
attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's actions 
did not harm consumers, but provided them with great benefits by 
lowering the cost and increasing the availability of software 
products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-
technology market and that their products increased our familiarity 
with the Internet. I personally have benefited from Microsoft's 
technology and windows...making it easy for me, an older computer 
user, to attempt expanding into computer research and use. I think 
the attack on Microsoft has hurt consumers and the economy of our 
state. If you attack the most innovative companies, how will the 
economy grow?! Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle 
this unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative 
company.
    Respectfully,
    Leslie Griffin
    1010 ``E'' Court
    PO Box 1583
    Deer Park, WA 99006-1583
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032943

From: Bruce Troth
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Bruce Troth
    120 SE Everett Mall Way #735
    Everett, WA 98208-3293
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032944

From: Clarence Atchison
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    My wife and I support of the recent settlement of the antitrust 
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys 
general and Microsoft Corporation. We appreciate and applaud the 
nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case; however, we are extremely 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to continue, with no apparent basis, to 
pursue this case.
    We truly believe that the settlement is fair and just to all 
concerned and possibly affected. The settlement allows Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and gives consumers (like me and 
my wife) more services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, or should be, Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, of which my wife and I are members, have been continually 
opposed to the federal government's antitrust case against 
Microsoft. It has done nothing but hurt our economy, especially in 
the markets of computer technology. For nearly 3 years, activists 
like myself and my wife have called, emailed, visited, and sent 
letters to the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' 
general offices explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm 
consumers, but instead provided consumers like us with great 
benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of 
software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology 
market and I can't imagine a world without what Microsoft has made 
available to us. Microsoft has only benefited the consumer!!!
    Thanking you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Clarence and Gay Atchison
    7029 16th Avenue NE
    Seattle, WA 98115-5734
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032945

From: Dennis Martin
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    The case for anti-trust action has not been made and a 
settlement is in hand. I think it is time to end the attorneys greed 
and political power shuffle. The market has suffered enough. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Dennis Martin
    10813 42 Drive SE
    Everett, WA 98208-9720
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032946

From: Tyler Wate
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Tyler Wate
    802 45th st N.E. Apt#9-103
    Auburn, WA 98002-1386
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032947

From: Ara Leigh
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/21/02 3:40pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Dear Official: It is most accurate to say that my dismay at the 
attacks on Microsoft in the form of Anti-Trust prosecution was 
profound. In America the moral of the day is ``take everything 
you can get,'' and this time they will ``get'' it 
from a company that has given more to the consumer than most. 
Microsoft had the goal to succeed. Quite frankly, the other 
companies could not compete because their products were not as 
favored by the consumer. During my training to become a real estate 
agent I becamse appalled that I could not talk to other agents about 
fees, because that would violate anti-

[[Page 29944]]

trust. At that time I realized that anyone who excels too much is in 
danger of being cut down thru anti-trust prosecution. When this 
happened to Microsoft, I was not surprised, just appalled. I realize 
that you must operate within the law. It is simply important that 
you know how the citizens, of which I am one, believe and feel on 
this subject.
    Sincerely,
    Ara Leigh
    3628 NW Endicott St
    Camas, WA 98607-8234



MTC-00032948

From: James Ringrose
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Ringrose
    3681 Harris Rd. S.E.
    Port Orchard, WA 98366-5935
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032949

From: Floyd Stewart
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Floyd Stewart
    4045 N. Deer Lake Rd.
    Loon Lake, WA 99148-9746
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032950

From: Richard Deming
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Richard Deming
    2427 Coal Creek Road
    Longview, WA 98632-9688
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032951

From: Donald Andrews
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Donald Andrews
    510 North Maple St.
    Colville, WA 99114-3016
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032952

From: John Field
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to

[[Page 29945]]

the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general 
offices explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, 
but provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Field
    29312 NE 16th Place
    Carnation, WA 98014-9644



MTC-00032953

From: Oscar Engfer
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Microsoft has been hurt enough so I am writing in support of the 
recent settlement of the long-running antitrust lawsuit between the 
U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys general and Microsoft 
Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that 
decided to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case, 
I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general 
and the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this 
baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Oscar Engfer
    PO Box 26
    Orting, WA 98360-0026
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032954

From: James H and Alice L Stevens
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James H and Alice L Stevens
    Post Office Box 728
    Asotin, WA 99402-0728
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032955

From: Cameron Quinn Lauseng
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/21/02 4:52pm
Subject: Settlement Problems
    I am sorely dissappointed with our Justice Department for 
obvious lack of judgement in creating such a soft and ineffectual 
settlement against Microsoft. This settlement has little more effect 
than the previously issued injuction against Microsoft, which they 
flagerantly violated. This current settlement does nothing to 
address this serious defiance of the American Justice system, does 
not address the demonstrated contempt of the American Justice 
System, and does nothing to remedy the half decade of damage to the 
American public that Microsoft's dramatically illegal behaviour 
caused.
    Furthermore, because this settlement fails to declare remedy for 
these past serious abuses of our laws, it will prove to be no more 
capable of restraining Microsoft's behaviour. Indeed, it can be 
found that Microsoft's newest operating system, Windows XP, may 
already be in violation of the settlement, by requiring consumers to 
subscribe to Microsoft services on the internet in order to get full 
use of features of the software.
    I would consider this rather prejudiced against other middleware 
providers that already offer these services that Microsoft is 
requiring subscription to. I continue to be astonished at the short-
sightedness of elements in our Justice system concerning this case. 
How can anybody seriously think that such a minor settlement will do 
anything to prevent future violations against the American public, 
considering past behaviour. Does the DOJ care nothing that Microsoft 
violated the previous consent decree within months of its issuance?
    I would also like to point out that the form of this settlement 
requires a rather expensive on-going enforcement by State and 
Federal agencies. This will prove to be dramatically expensive to 
the American taxpayers in the long run. Would not a firm and 
definitive remedy that provided an automatic mechanism of future 
competative operations (split up) prove to be much less expensive to 
the American people? With the enforcement mechanism currently 
provided for in this settlement, the American people can expect a 
protracted period of history of expensive court proceedings, 
remedies, judgements, filings, etc., and even an entire government 
agency just for the maintenance of this one settlement.
    Though Jackson's behaviour was deplorable, I can't see that the 
breakup judgement could be set aside so easily. This only proves 
that our judges are not blind to subjectivity. One spoke out, the 
other one who turned it around so quickly made just as loud a 
statement. There is no difference in the lack of objectivity of 
either of the judges involved.
    Cameron Lauseng
    Whitmore Lake, MI



MTC-00032956

From: Eugene (038) Ileene Rhodes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 4:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    We are writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though we applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, we are thoroughly 
disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and the District 
of Columbia have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, we thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Eugene & Ileene Rhodes
    945-12th Street NE
    Auburn, WA 98002-4205

[[Page 29946]]

    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032957

From: Patricia Herbold
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Patricia Herbold
    13658 N.E. 37th Place
    Bellevue, WA 98005-1418
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032958

From: David Vertz
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Vertz
    6115 58th Ave Se
    Lacey, WA 98513-4181



MTC-00032959

From: Michael Dilley
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Dilley
    4027 161st Ave SE
    Bellevue, WA 98006-1860



MTC-00032960

From: Rodney Newbound
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 5:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Rodney Newbound
    22058 State Route 9
    Mount Vernon, WA 98274-8071



MTC-00032961

From: James Malinowski
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    I have been a user of computer equipment my entire career as an 
Electrical Power Professional Engineer and have profited in many 
professional and personal ways from the personal computer 
revolution. Microsoft has been the leader in this revolution 
providing wonderful products at very reasonable prices. The most 
wonderful product was DOS and Windows which provided standardized 
platforms for develpment of many wonderful and powerful user 
programs.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.

[[Page 29947]]

    Respectfully,
    James Malinowski
    P.O Box 127
    Amboy, WA 98601-0127



MTC-00032962

From: Paul Knight
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Paul Knight
    3930 Country Club Dr, NW
    Olympia, WA 98502-3711



MTC-00032963

From: Lucinda Sexton
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I think it a shame that the company which has created more 
millionaires in the history of the world is being hounded by our own 
government.
    It's obvious to me that Microsoft doesn't completely monopolize 
the computer industry, because we have used Apple computers for the 
past several years. Infact, we currently have, and use, both a 
Perform and a G-3.
    Leave Microsoft alone & get on with finding & 
prosecuting terrorists.
    Respectfully,
    Lucinda Sexton
    12701-106th Av Ct E
    4441 S. Meridian PMB# 222
    Puyallup, WA 98374-2714



MTC-00032964

From: Ralph Hintze
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Ralph Hintze
    16221 SE 175th Pl.
    Renton, WA 98058-9101



MTC-00032965

From: Judith Peterson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the 
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, and 
Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state attorneys 
general that decided to follow the federal government's lead and 
settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that remaining state 
attorneys general and the District of Columbia have decided to 
further pursue this case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    Members of Citizens for a Sound Economy have been unrelenting in 
our opposition to the federal government's antitrust case against 
Microsoft. Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but provided 
them with great benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the 
availability of software products. Microsoft is a pioneer in the 
high-technology market and their products have increased our 
familiarity with the internet.
    Thank your for your decisions to settle this unfortunate lawsuit 
against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Judith Peterson
    238 Oxbow Rd.
    Woodland, WA 98674-9291



MTC-00032966

From: Herbert O. Jr. ABURN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert O. Jr. ABURN
5109 First St., North
Arlington, VA 22203-1207
January 21, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of

[[Page 29948]]

America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers 
will be able to select a variety of pre-installed software on their 
computers. It will also be easier to substitute competitors' 
products after purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and 
software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows 
XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Herbert O. Aburn, Jr.



MTC-00032967

From: Pete Dakan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Quite frankly, I don't even know who you are or how you fit into 
the Microsoft suit. The words below drafted by the Citizen group 
express well enough why the suit should be settled immediatlely and 
I can only assume you have some influence on the outcome.
    I would like you to consider the fact that people need to be 
responsible for their own actions--everyone has a choice. It is 
not your job nor that of any politician to make decisions for 
individuals.
    Please allow people to run their own lives without government 
interference. At the end of the day just ask yourself how you 
contributed to the real personal accountability and responsibilty of 
Americans. If you didn't, you should be ashamed. This is a small 
issue in the scheme of things but the trend is definitely in the 
wrong direction for a strong future for America.
    I support the recent settlement of the long-running antitrust 
lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys 
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state 
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's 
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that 
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have 
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Pete Dakan
    12821 S.E. 285th St.
    Kent, WA 98031-8875



MTC-00032968

From: Steve Wolf
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Steve Wolf
    459 145th PL NE
    Bellevue, WA 98007-4935



MTC-00032969

From: Sidney Porter
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Sidney Porter
    4407--52nd Ave. SW
    Seattle, WA 98116-3905



MTC-00032970

From: Benjamin Green
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Benjamin Green
    8317 Earl Ave. NW
    Seattle, WA 98117-4531

[[Page 29949]]



MTC-00032971

From: Tom Ramus
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Tom Ramus
    8722 17th Ave NW
    Seattle, WA 98117-3505



MTC-00032972

From: Rachel Braly
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Rachel Braly
    10833 Meadow Garden Ct.
    Las Vegas, NV 89135



MTC-00032973

From: Charles Burpee II
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charles Burpee II
    202 Schmid St.
    Enumclaw, WA 98022-7436



MTC-00032974

From: Andy Neault
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Andy Neault
    24807 SE 224th St
    Maple Valley, WA 98038-6629
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Econonmy



MTC-00032975

From: Rocky Bisogno
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.

[[Page 29950]]

    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Rocky Bisogno
    1821 SW 349 PL
    Federal Way, WA 98023-6904



MTC-00032976

From: COL (R) Ron Averill
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    COL (R) Ron Averill
    2523 Graf Rd
    Centralia, WA 98531-9087



MTC-00032977

From: Anthony Gill
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/21/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anthony Gill
16314 Mink Rd NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Anthony Gill



MTC-00032978

From: Wendy Gaskill
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Wendy Gaskill
    35405 23rd Ave SW C16
    Federal Way, WA 98023-3159
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032979

From: Gary Hansen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/21/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from. As you are well aware, members 
of Citizens for a Sound Economy have been unrelenting in our 
opposition to the federal government's antitrust case against 
Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself have called, 
emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice 
and to state attorneys' general offices explaining that Microsoft's 
actions did not harm consumers, but provided them with great 
benefits by lowering the cost and increasing the availability of 
software products. We have stressed that Microsoft is a pioneer in 
the high-technology market and that their products increased our 
familiarity

[[Page 29951]]

with the Internet. Once again, I thank you for your decision to 
settle this unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative 
company.
    Respectfully,
    Gary Hansen
    32028 SE 307th st
    Ravensdale, WA 98051
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032980

From: Lynn Butner
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 5:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Lynn Butner
    121 Spring Street
    Boonville, NC 27011-8463
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032981

From: stephen Flaherty
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 5:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    stephen Flaherty
    801 South Pitt Street
    427
    Alexandria, VA 22314-4369
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032982

From: Jack Clark
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jack Clark
    5134 Ad El Rd SE
    Olympia, WA 98513-9208
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032983

From: Prof. Alexander G.Ramm
To: Attorney general
Date: 1/22/02 6:28am
Subject: Re: Microsoft Settlement.
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing because I support ending the antitrust case against 
Microsoft. Though I have not intensely followed the case, I know 
about the pending settlement. I would like to see the settlement 
finalized.
    Microsoft is a great company that makes products that have 
become important to peoples' lives and businesses. Microsoft 
should be allowed to function properly according to the terms of the 
settlement. By disclosing its internal Windows computer codes to its 
competitors, who will also be free to add their own software to 
Windows and remove Microsoft's Microsoft has gone a long, long way 
to help its weaker competitors. The longer the case is active the 
more the American economy suffers, which affects more than the 
company itself. Please end the suit against Microsoft. It has been 
going on long enough.
    Sincerely,
    Alexander Ramm
    721 Elling Drive
    Manhattan, KS 66502
    Professor Alexander G.Ramm
    Mathematics Department,
    Kansas State University,
    Manhattan, KS 66506-2602,
    Phones: 785-532-6750 (math. dept) FAX 
785-532-0546 (math.dept) email: [email protected] 
http://www.math.ksu.edu/ramm



MTC-00032984

From: John Cosman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:29am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers,

[[Page 29952]]

but provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Cosman
    768 SW 13th Avenue
    Oak Harbor, WA 98277-4509
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032985

From: John Harding
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Harding
    5906 143rd St SE
    Everett, WA 98208-9339
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032986

From: David Hunt
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    David Hunt
    13522 240th St. NE
    Arlington, WA 98223-8551
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032987

From: Edward Carmody
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this, what I 
believe baseless, unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and 
innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Edward Carmody
    12024 106th Ave Ct E
    Puyallup, WA 98374-2605
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032988

From: James Barfoot
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Barfoot
    2817 202nd Ave CT E
    Sumner, WA 98390-9005
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032989

From: Tom Evans
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.

[[Page 29953]]

    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Tom Evans
    201 180th St Ct E
    Spanaway, WA 98387-4610
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032990

From: Chris Hamilton
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02 8:35am
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Sincerely,
    Chris Hamilton
    3700 Pacific Ave Ste A
    Olympia, WA 98501-2165



MTC-00032991

From: James Dunning
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    James Dunning
    1335 17th ST SE #B
    Auburn, WA 98002-6974
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032992

From: Robert Reinhardt
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Reinhardt
67 Adair Ct.
Malverne, NY 11565
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert C. Reinhardt



MTC-00032993

From: Thomas Rekdal
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas Rekdal
    7558 Ravenna Ave. N.E.
    Seattle, WA 98115-4662
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032994

From: Greg Ashley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg Ashley
PO Box 357
Clay City, Il 62824-0357
January 22, 2002

[[Page 29954]]

Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Ashley



MTC-00032995

From: Marilyn Kittelman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 9:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Marilyn Kittelman
    2303 Elkhead Rd.
    Yoncalla, OR 97499-9728
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00032996

From: Henry W, Rambacher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry W, Rambacher
241 Countryside Drive
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Henry W. Rambacher



MTC-00032997

From: Claude Ross
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Claude Ross
P.O. Box 388
Sequim, WA 98382-0388
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

[[Page 29955]]

601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Claude M. Ross



MTC-00032998

From: F, Noreen Rambacher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
F. Noreen Rambacher
241 Countryside Drive
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    F. Noreen Rambacher



MTC-00033000

From: Joyce Hughes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joyce Hughes
4904 Lake Cecile Drive
Kissimmee, FL 34746-5158
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for

[[Page 29956]]

the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joyce E. Hughes



MTC-00033001

From: Robert Mattox
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Mattox
1489 Cardinal Dr.
St. Joseph, MI 49085
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert E. Mattox



MTC-00033002

From: Penny Rambacher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Penny Rambacher
241 Countryside Drive
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Penny Rambacher



MTC-00033003

From: Franklyn Diller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Franklyn Diller
9504 Croton Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45242
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and

[[Page 29957]]

resources on matters of far greater national significance: the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Franklyn D. Diller



MTC-00033004

From: Richard Rath
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Rath
10 Duxbury Hts.
Fairport, NY 14450
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Rath



MTC-00033005

From: Colleen Wise
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 10:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Colleen Wise
    916 114th Ave E
    Edgewood, WA 98372-1417
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033006

From: William Masterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 10:55am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Masterson
1166 Holmesdale Road
Jacksonville, FL 32207
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism,

[[Page 29958]]

including homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    W.A. Masterson



MTC-00033007

From: Debe Loeber
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Debe Loeber
    503 12th Ave. Ct.
    Milton, WA 98354-9500
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033008

From: Timothy Coy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Timothy Coy
315 E. Huntingdon St.
Savannah, GA 31401
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors: products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Timothy E. Coy



MTC-00033009

From: Virginia Arnold
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to

[[Page 29959]]

the U.S. Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general 
offices explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, 
but provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Virginia Arnold
    9905 Marine View Dr.
    Mukilteo, WA 98275-4113
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033010

From: Malcolm Russell
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    Accept the settlement and work to get Microsoft focused on it's 
business again. I support the recent settlement of the long-running 
antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state 
attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation.
    Though I applaud the nine state attorneys general that decided 
to follow the federal government's lead and settle the case, I am 
thoroughly disappointed that remaining state attorneys general and 
the District of Columbia have decided to further pursue this 
baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from. Microsoft's actions did not 
harm consumers, but provided them with great benefits by lowering 
the cost and increasing the availability of software products.
    Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Malcolm Russell
    4414 South 9th Street
    Tacoma, WA 98405-1210
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033011

From: Stephen Ryczek
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Stephen Ryczek
    105 Eagle Ridge Dr. E.
    Puyallup, WA 98374-9217
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033012

From: JOHN CARNAGHI
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JOHN CARNAGHI
7 LAKE SHORE LANE
GROSSE POINTE, MI 48236-2464
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John A. Carnaghi



MTC-00033013

From: Franklin Mayse
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers,

[[Page 29960]]

but provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Franklin Mayse
    11308 194th st. E.
    Graham, WA 98338-8169
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033014

From: Jeanette Whitley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeanette Whitley
1993 6th Ave., S.E.
Vero Beach, Fl 32962-7311
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William P. Whitley



MTC-00033015

From: Thomas Simmons
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Thomas Simmons
    5423 W. Tapps Dr. E
    Sumner, WA 98390-8912
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033016

From: John Malivuk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Malivuk
1182 Mt. Vernon Avenue
Akron, OH 44310-2231
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which

[[Page 29961]]

will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Malivuk



MTC-00033017

From: P. Hill
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
P. Hill
2342a 30th Av
Osceola, wi 54020-5927
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    P. Hill



MTC-00033018

From: C. Kenneth Yetter
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. Kenneth Yetter
314 Hillside Drive
Shillington, Pa 19607
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    C. Kenneth Yetter



MTC-00033019

From: Frank Moretti
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Moretti
4 Giles Hill Road
Redding, Ct 06896
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.

[[Page 29962]]

    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Moreti



MTC-00033020

From: Billy Kidd
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:56am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Billy Kidd
157 Sanders Drive
Minden, LA 71055-7503
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Billy H. Kidd



MTC-00033021

From: William O'Byrne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:58am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William O'Byrne
3631 Vienna Drive
College Station, TX 77845
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William F. O'Byrne

[[Page 29963]]



MTC-00033022

From: Donald High
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Donald High
    1007 Edgeworth Ave.
    Kirkwood, MO 63122-2434
    January 22, 2002
    Ms. Renata Hesse
    U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
    Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald A. High



MTC-00033023

From: Katherine High
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Katherine High
1007 Edgeworth Ave.
Kirkwood, MO 63122-2434
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Katherine L. High



MTC-00033024

From: Larry Fruth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Larry Fruth
101 Summerfield Blvd.
Bowling Green, OH 43402
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to

[[Page 29964]]

disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Larry Fruth



MTC-00033025

From: George B. Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George B. Clark
6800 Winged Foot Drive
Stuart, FL 34997-8619
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George B. Clark



MTC-00033026

From: Sterling Haskell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sterling Haskell
2239 Watrous Drive
Dunedin, FL 34698
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sterling E. Haskell



MTC-00033027

From: Harold Mcgraw
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Mcgraw
9 Sidney Drive
Independence, Ky 41051
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S.

[[Page 29965]]

v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow 
taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Harold E, Mcgraw



MTC-00033028

From: David W. Bosscher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David W. Bosscher
2911 Chamberlain SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49508
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    David W. Bosscher



MTC-00033029

From: Russell Coventry
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russell Coventry
P. O. Box 104
Ellison Bay, WI 54210
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on

[[Page 29966]]

their computers. It will also be easier to substitute competitors? 
products after purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and 
software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows 
XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Russell A. Coventry



MTC-00033030

From: Bernd Koken
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bernd Koken
916 MacEwen Drive
Osprey, FL 34229
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bernd Koken



MTC-00033031

From: john duncan
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 1:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    john duncan
    8905 65th St W
    University Place, WA 98467-1652
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033032

From: Joni Masterson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joni Masterson
    2756 SW 327th St.
    Federal Way, WA 98023-2536
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033033

From: BOBBY JONES
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
BOBBY JONES
310 DELAWARE SPRINGS BLVD.
BUTNET, TX 78611-3516
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against

[[Page 29967]]

terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Colonel Bobby A. Jones, USAF (RET)



MTC-00033034

From: WILLIAM NESBITT
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WILLIAM NESBITT
4135 CREEKWOOD LN.
MULBERRY, FL 33860
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,please get rid of all the lawyers
    WILLIAM NESBITT



MTC-00033035

From: ROBERT JACKSON
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROBERT JACKSON
165 A HAGUE BLVD
GLENMONT, NY 12077-3617
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greaternational significance ? the war 
against terrorism, including homelandsecurity. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whopushed for a settlement after 
the attacks of September 11, it is vital forthe country to move on 
from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremelyhard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effectimmediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals fromcontinuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will beable to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own. Competitorsalso benefit from the 
provision that frees up computer manufacturers todisable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operatingsystem 
and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannotretaliate 
against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for 
using products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company'sexpense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with thesettlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid

[[Page 29968]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment 
portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more 
than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this settlement 
can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, and I urge 
the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. Jackson



MTC-00033036

From: James Whatley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Whatley
350 Center Point River Road
Kerrville, TX 78028-8004
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war 
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after 
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on 
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James Whatley



MTC-00033037

From: Harold A Brenner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold A Brenner
96 Hibiscus Dr.
Punta Gorda, Fl 33950
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greaternational significance ? the war 
against terrorism, including homelandsecurity. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whopushed for a settlement after 
the attacks of September 11, it is vital forthe country to move on 
from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremelyhard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effectimmediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals fromcontinuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will beable to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own. Competitorsalso benefit from the 
provision that frees up computer manufacturers todisable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operatingsystem 
and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannotretaliate 
against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for 
using products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout 
of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company'sexpense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with thesettlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors?products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    H. A. Brenner



MTC-00033039

From: Richard Chappell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Chappell
262 Cambridge Road
Camden, DE 19934-1204
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war 
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after 
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on 
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers

[[Page 29969]]

andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to 
continueto innovate and provide new software and products. Software 
developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard G. Chappell



MTC-00033040

From: Samuel Hall Jr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Samuel Hall Jr
1418Pleasant Valley Dr
Baltimore, MD 21228-2541
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war 
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after 
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on 
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel D Hall Jr



MTC-00033041

From: W. E. Connell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. E. Connell
6201 Simmons Dr.
Anniston,, AL 36206-1174
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war 
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after 
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on 
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    W. E. Connell, Jr



MTC-00033042

From: David Lopez
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:46pm

[[Page 29970]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Lopez
P.O. Box 17412
Tampa, Fl 33682-7412
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    David Lopez



MTC-00033043

From: Paul Aloia
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Aloia
826 Lansing Switch
Longview, TX 75602
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Aloia



MTC-00033044

From: Philip Robinson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Robinson
7113 Sheffield Dr.
Knoxville, TN 37909
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using

[[Page 29971]]

products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Philip A. Robinson



MTC-00033045

From: Delbert Cummngs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Delbert Cummngs
4870 Big Pine Dr.
Lakeside, Az 85929-5511
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Delbert E. Cummngs



MTC-00033046

From: WALT MORENO
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
WALT MORENO
933 MENDOCINO AVENUE
SANTA ROSA, CA 95401
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Walt Moreno



MTC-00033047

From: MARY V. MORIN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MARY V. MORIN
256 HILLSIDE AVENUE
CHATHAM, NJ 07928
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the

[[Page 29972]]

public interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, 
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mary V. Morin



MTC-00033048

From: William H. Schauer Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William H. Schauer Jr.
970 Gershwin Dr.
Largo, FL 33771-1314
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William H. Schauer Jr.



MTC-00033049

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a senior citizen and a member of the voting public I deplore 
the intrusion of state governments into a rational Justice 
Department settlement of the Microsoft litigation.
    Surely they've been aggressive---isn't that the nature of 
compettiveness in the business world? I feel that the states are not 
so much seeking redress for their constituents but rather are 
hopeful of a financial windfall. Enough, if you please!!!
    R.J.Corbliss
    Barnegat, NJ



MTC-00033050

From: Eileen Bolton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eileen Bolton
3351 Lee Street
Hollywood, FL 33021
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against

[[Page 29973]]

computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using 
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Eileen Bolton



MTC-00033051

From: Leo Caissie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leo Caissie
524 Main Street
Hudson, MA 01749-2909
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Leo A.Caissie



MTC-00033052

From: Robert Curley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Curley
534 candlewood Lane
Flat Rock, NC 28731-9638
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Curley



MTC-00033053

From: Herman Riley Stein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herman Riley Stein
154 Seminole Blvd
Tavernier, FL 33070-2148
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I do not need someone to write messages for me any more than I 
need the lawyers living off the DOJ to decide what is good for

[[Page 29974]]

me. I liked the telephone service that worked! So it cost a bit more 
but the phones could fall from the second story and still work. Now 
we have junk phones from China and God knows where which need 
replacing each year. Thank you DOJ! The ``hodgepog'' 
called service must also be from China. Now the student lawyers want 
to kill the organization that made the computer operation possible 
for almost any age group. AND YOU USE MY MONEY TO MAKE MY LIFE MORE 
DIFFICULT. I wonder just what is taught in law school these days. It 
sure isn't to defend the ordinary people. I would like to express my 
support for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. 
Microsoft case. when all appeals from continuing the litigation 
would finally be exhausted.
    Sincerely and Thank you
    Herman Riley Stein



MTC-00033054

From: Robert Woody
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Woody
8325 Harvard Ave
Raytown, Mo 64138-3645
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing The terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Woody



MTC-00033055

From: duane carlson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
duane carlson
206 riverside rd.
marquette, mi 49855
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing The terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    duane r carlson



MTC-00033056

From: William Laudel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Laudel
661 Kirkshire
St. Louis, Mo 63122
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing The terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by

[[Page 29975]]

District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William H. Laudel



MTC-00033057

From: Leland Evjen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leland Evjen
1517 1st ave eastt
Williston, ND 58801
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing The terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Leland Evjen



MTC-00033058

From: Jared Nuzzolillo
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 2:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to you with the hope that one honest voice may be 
heard above the shouting and screaming of special interest groups 
across the nation. I'd like to start by stating that I have no 
financial interest in Microsoft whatsoever, nor do I belong to any 
organization that has said interests. I am coming to you, 
specifically, as a freedom-loving American consumer.
    Microsoft has, time and again, created the cheapest and most 
efficacious software available in its industry. I use Windows daily, 
and have found it both easier and faster than alternative products I 
have used (and there are many). Microsoft's software is, in a single 
word, superior. Microsoft is currently being penalized by a lawsuit 
raised, not by the consumers, but by those who failed to compete 
with them fairly, and seek special help from ``Uncle Sam'' 
to force their own software into the market. I don't want their slow 
and unreliable software, and as an intelligent, (mostly) free human 
being, resent the fact that you are attempting to remove yet another 
choice from me.
    Success and innovation should be rewarded in our nation, not 
penalized. Bill Gates is an icon of the American dream, and to 
steal/destroy/control his property is an affront to civilized 
society as a whole. It is your job to protect his, and the other 
Microsoft shareholders, rights, not to ingringe upon them. Please, 
take this opportunity to show the citizenry that the government of 
our proud nation will protect the rights of its people, and not give 
in to lobbyists and talking-heads. Please, preserve our freedom.
    Sincerely,
    Jared Nuzzolillo



MTC-00033059

From: Leona Morgan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leona Morgan
3 Old Chester Road
East Derry, NH 03041-0087
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking

[[Page 29976]]

effect immediately rather than months or years from now when all 
appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Leona N Morgan



MTC-00033060

From: Mildred Van Keuren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 2:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mildred Van Keuren
414 Shropshire St
San Antonio, TX 78217-6033
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mildred Van Keuren



MTC-00033061

From: Margaret M. Rivers
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret M. Rivers
3507 Springfield Ct.
Valparaiso, IN 46383-1948
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to

[[Page 29977]]

submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District 
Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret M. Rivers



MTC-00033062

From: Edward Jayjack
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Jayjack
2120 W. Pleasant Valley Rd.
Parma, Oh 44134
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Jayjack



MTC-00033063

From: Jim Nussle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Nussle
1101 Division St.
Cresco, IA 52136-1017
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Raymond W. Morrison



MTC-00033064

From: David Ott
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Ott
1126 Nathaniel Ct
Hazelwood, MO 63042-3812
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's

[[Page 29978]]

programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    David E. Ott



MTC-00033065

From: Philip Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 3:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip Miller
4011 Rolling Green Dr.
Memphis, TN 38125
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Philip Miller



MTC-00033066

From: Erik Hanson
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 3:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Erik Hanson
    1602 Naval Ave. #38
    Bremerton, WA 98312-3081
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033067

From: Alice Burich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alice Burich
343 Whitclem Drive
Palo Allto, CA 94306-4115
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to

[[Page 29979]]

disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Alice B. Burich



MTC-00033068

From: James Hand
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Hand
368 Lower LaVista Ct. NW
Salem, OR 97304
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Hand



MTC-00033069

From: Jack McCorkle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jack McCorkle
1240 Bridlewood Way
Reno, NV 89509-7116
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 601 D Street NW, 
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jack E. McCorkle, Reno, Nevada



MTC-00033070

From: Helen Allport
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Helen Allport
346 Fremont Road
Nottingham, PA 19362
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    As a taxpayer and consumer, I SUPPORT the Microsoft settlement.

[[Page 29980]]

    Sincerely,
    Helen P. Allport



MTC-00033071

From: Robert Merkle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Merkle
153 Wildflower Lane
Waynesville, NC 28786
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert B. Merkle



MTC-00033072

From: Brenda A. Moran
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brenda A. Moran
P O Box 2160
Hobbs, NM 88241-2160
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Brenda A. Moran



MTC-00033073

From: Rudy p Petorelli
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 4:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rudy p Petorelli
519-1 Joseph Ct
Naples, Fl 34104
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.

[[Page 29981]]

    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rudy Petorelli



MTC-00033074

From: Hal Neiman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Hal Neiman
2212 California Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90403
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Hal Neiman



MTC-00033075

From: Paul Walker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Paul Walker
3137 Whisper Blvd.
Deland, FL 32724-8247
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Paul C. Walker



MTC-00033076

From: Phil Corwin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phil Corwin
1717 Voorhees Ave.
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266-7045
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:

[[Page 29982]]

    Please see the comments at the end (from a friend of mine who I 
agree with in this instance) that are in addition to the next text.
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change. BELOW IS THE 
ADDITIONAL TEXT.
    If the premise of the final sentence is true, then this seems 
like a reasonable question:
    Two men, both billionaires. One develops relatively cheap 
software and gives hundreds of millions of dollars to charity. The 
other sponsors terrorism and is probably responsible for the deaths 
of thousands. That being the case, why is it that the US government 
has spent more money chasing down Bill Gates over the past ten years 
than Osama bin Laden?
    Sincerely,
    Phil Corwin



MTC-00033077

From: joseph kudzol
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
joseph kudzol
112 dolphin drive
fayetteville, ga 30214
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    joe kudzol



MTC-00033078

From: George Mason
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Mason
19053 North 88th Ave.
Peoria, AZ 85382-8541
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install

[[Page 29983]]

other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against 
computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using 
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George F. Mason



MTC-00033079

From: George Vogrin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Vogrin
933 73rd Street
Downers Grove, IL 60516
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George R. Vogrin



MTC-00033080

From: GEORGE HANSEN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
GEORGE HANSEN
513 VAUTIER RD.
SEQUIM, WA 98382
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    GEORGE HANSEN



MTC-00033081

From: Mary Johnston
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Johnston
6530 SW Parkhill Drive
Portland, OR 97201
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S.

[[Page 29984]]

v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow 
taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mary E, KIncaid Johnston



MTC-00033082

From: Robert Lipp
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Lipp
23265 Woodhaven Ct
Farmington Hills, MI 48335-3124
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am a taxpayer and a consumer of several Microsoft products. I 
would like to express my support for the revised proposed Final 
Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has 
cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and now be able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greater national significance: the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms 
of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides of this 
case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and 
taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to 
continue to innovate and provide new software and products. Software 
developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert E. Lipp



MTC-00033083

From: Maurice Angvall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Maurice Angvall
1049 Marchetti Ct.
Chico, CA 95926
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was

[[Page 29985]]

allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-
installed software on their computers. It will also be easier to 
substitute competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Maurice W. Angvall



MTC-00033084

From: Harry Stewart
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Stewart
5018 Colorado Rd.
Midpines, Ca 95345-9707
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Harry O. Stewart



MTC-00033085

From: George Greaney
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Greaney
1603--E. Hedgecroft
Seabrook, TX 77586
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement. Most importantly, this settlement is 
fair to the computer users and consumers of America, on whose behalf 
the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a 
variety of pre-installed software on their computers. It will also 
be easier to substitute competitors' products after purchase as 
well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that were not 
part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to 
be modified to comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly 
brought on behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of 
litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a 
hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, the country 
needs the economic stability this settlement can provide. This 
settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change. Sincerely, George J. Greaney



MTC-00033086

From: Perry Lewis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Perry Lewis
175 18th SW
Huron, SD 57350
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this

[[Page 29986]]

agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Perry Lewis



MTC-00033087

From: Vernon White
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vernon White
6245 3rd Ave. North
St. Petersburg, FL 33710-7822
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Vernon H. White



MTC-00033088

From: Bruce Lewis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bruce Lewis
3119 Knollwood Ct
Sioux City, IA 51106
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to

[[Page 29987]]

submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District 
Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bruce Lewis



MTC-00033089

From: Andrew Pickens
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Andrew Pickens
222 Halbart Drive
San Antonio, TX 78213
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Pickens



MTC-00033090

From: Ruth Howard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ruth Howard
1405 PLantation Dr.
Lady Lake, Fl 32159-2246
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ruth C. Howard



MTC-00033091

From: Joseph Vrzalik
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Vrzalik
3890 Schroeder Avenue
Perry Hall, MD 21128
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service

[[Page 29988]]

providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented 
access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to 
make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joeph F. Vrzalik



MTC-00033092

From: Rodger Landes
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rodger Landes
1238 Creek Road
Lititz, PA 17543
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rodger B. Landes



MTC-00033093

From: Pam Barton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Pam Barton
404 Jasmine Way
Clearwater, FL 33756
January 22, 2002
    Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Pam Barton



MTC-00033094

From: Ray Barton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ray Barton

[[Page 29989]]

404 Jasmine Way
Clearwater, FL 33756
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ray Barton



MTC-00033095

From: Allison Moore
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Allison Moore
10636 S. Niagara
Littleton, CO 80124
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Allison Moore



MTC-00033096

From: Bill Reddie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Reddie
661 E. Intrepid St P.O.Box 1314
Pahrump, NV 89041
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in

[[Page 29990]]

an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Reddie



MTC-00033097

From: John Lunkes
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 6:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    John Lunkes
    8210 49th St. Ct., West
    University Place, WA 98467-1969
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033098

From: ALLAN HANSON
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ALLAN HANSON
6020 LITTLE SPRING ROAD
SOMERSET, CA 95684-9219
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    ALLAN G. HANSON



MTC-00033099

From: Howard Milke
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Milke
35 Ocean Meadows N. PO Box 2348
Ogunquit, ME 03907-2348
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for

[[Page 29991]]

the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Howard Milke



MTC-00033100

From: lillian lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
lillian lee
22120 center st 502
castro valley, ca 94546
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    lillian lee



MTC-00033101

From: Dorothy Howard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Howard
2285 Norwegian Drive, Apt. 59
Clearwater, FL 33763
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy H. Howard



MTC-00033102

From: Renata B. Hesse
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
5532 Country Club Way
Sarasota, Fl 34243-3757
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 29992]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios 
have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, 
the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Frederick C. Faulkner



MTC-00033103

From: Richard Haugen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Haugen
740 Southgate
Fullerton, Ca 92832
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Haugen



MTC-00033104

From: Catherine Reimer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Catherine Reimer
14 Truman Road
Charleroi, PA 15022
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Taxpayer & Consumer
    Catherine M. Reimer



MTC-00033105

From: Howard Garrett
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 6:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Garrett
2107 Sylvan Lane
Midland, MI 48640
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ,

[[Page 29993]]

the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. 
Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own. Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Howard L. Garrett



MTC-00033106

From: Alvin Barber, Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alvin Barber, Jr.
1885 Aloha Street
Red Bluff, CA 96980-4009
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Rejoicing in Christ,
    Alvin B. Barber, Jr.



MTC-00033107

From: Dennis Fischer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dennis Fischer
9728 Regalton Court
St. Louis, MO 63123-5318
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dennis R. Fischer



MTC-00033108

From: Mary Stock

[[Page 29994]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Stock
670 Island Way #607
Clearwater, FL 33767
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Stock



MTC-00033109

From: June Hillyer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
June Hillyer
50 Churhill Drive
Bella Vista, AR 72714-6232
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    June Hillyer



MTC-00033110

From: Mike Silva
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/22/02 7:16pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Dear Sir;
    I believe you are making a serious error in judgement in going 
after Microsoft in this manner. I believe their competition is 
trying to break Microsoft. Giving codes and strip down versions of 
windows and other programs will weaken the abilities of Microsoft to 
create new programming, and this will hurt the consumer. Microsoft 
developed windows and should be able to keep the codes that they 
created. It seems to me that you would be stripping the company of a 
product they basically created,and continue to develope. I do 
believe that there should be a choice of browsers and programs 
independent of using Microsoft software. Linux seems to be one and 
I'm sure there could be others. The problem is that windows is owned 
and operated by Microsoft and was their invention to start with and 
to give away secret codes would put not only Microsoft at risk of 
piracy(sp) but every other company in the world at risk. Why 
develope a product and share all the workings only to have it stolen 
by a rival under the guise of unfair business.
    Sincerely,
    Mike Silva
    1717 Pepper Villa Drive
El Cajon , CA 92021-1215



MTC-00033111

From: Charles Patterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles Patterson
P O Box 9069
Gosnell, AR 72319
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S.

[[Page 29995]]

v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow 
taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Patterson



MTC-00033112

From: Joe Boehnlein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Boehnlein
5389 Circle Drive
Belmont, Mi 49306-9002
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Boehnlein



MTC-00033113

From: John I. McLain
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John I. McLain
16874 131st Way N
Jupiter,, FL 33478
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was

[[Page 29996]]

allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-
installed software on their computers. It will also be easier to 
substitute competitors' products after purchase as well. The 
Judgment even covers issues and software that were not part of the 
original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified 
to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John I. McLain



MTC-00033114

From: Luther Klick
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Luther Klick
315 E. Chestnut St.
Cleona, Pa 17042
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Luther Klick



MTC-00033115

From: James Frisbie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Frisbie
636 Holly Road
Cadillac, MI 49601
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James R. Frisbie



MTC-00033116

From: Howard Sampson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Sampson
4063 RR 4
Cortland, OH 44410
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly,

[[Page 29997]]

who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Howard Sampson



MTC-00033117

From: Aloma Blaylock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 7:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    Microsoft has given us programs and operating system that is 
easy to access and use. No one has forced me to use their operating 
system. Competitors who have fallen behind in innovation should stop 
complaining and get to work. Are you going to make General Mills 
package a little Special K with their Cheerios of they get a high 
percentage of the cereal market?
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Aloma Blaylock
    1013 West 13th
    Port Angeles, WA 98363-7220
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033118

From: Chris Norbury
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 7:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chris Norbury
2175 Sunflower Lane
Owatonna, MN 55060-2083
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Chris Norbury



MTC-00033119

From: Becki Shaffer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Becki Shaffer
939 Deerfield Rd.
Deerfield, IL 60015
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and

[[Page 29998]]

the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Becki A. Shaffer



MTC-00033120

From: D Carlton Cobb
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
D Carlton Cobb
3892 Three Doves Cove
Memphis, TN 38133-2106
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    D. Carlton Cobb



MTC-00033121

From: Carolyn Lovern
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 8:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Carolyn Lovern
    25122 Florence Acres Rd.
    Monroe, WA 98272-9661
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033122

From: Ronald Newton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Newton
307 Rainbow Ct
Paso Robles, CA 93446-2986
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national

[[Page 29999]]

significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald C Newton



MTC-00033123

From: Bill Zeitlin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bill Zeitlin
281 Swan Court
Manhasset, NY 11030
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on 
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against 
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bill Zeitlin



MTC-00033126

From: fred bialek
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 8:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
fred bialek
200 winding way
woodside, ca 94062
January 22, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greaternational significance: the war 
against terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after 
the attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on 
from this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid

[[Page 30000]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment 
portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more 
than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this settlement 
can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, and I urge 
the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Fred B. Bialek



MTC-00033127

From: jdfrost
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/22/02 8:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joan Frost
838 N 161st Place
Shoreline, WA 98133
January 22,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The recent antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the US 
Departmentof Justice has been a long time coming. I feel that the 
lawsuit was unjustified inthe first place. Microsoft has done 
wonderful things for our nation. It has createdjobs, made 
technological breakthroughs, and contributed to our 
educationsystems. The Windows operating system for all practical 
purposes is thestandard for the industry without which we would not 
have most of our applicationsoftware if there were no 
``standard'' in place. In part, the state of our 
depressedeconomy was brought about by this suit that has it has had 
a negative impactupon the PC industry.
    Yet, the government wants to bring it down. It seems that if 
onesucceeds then that entity must automatically be evil. The terms 
of the settlementreflect the intense lobbying efforts of Microsoft's 
competitors. For one, all theconcessions are geared towards helping 
the competitors gain an edge that theywould not have achieved on 
their own. Microsoft is giving them technologicalinformation such as 
interfaces and protocols. Microsoft is also agreeing not toretaliate 
against computer makers and software developers who promote non-
Microsoft products.
    Although flawed, the settlement should be realized because the 
alternativeof further litigation would be too much for our country 
to bear. We need Microsoftto be creating new products for the 
public's best interests. Why do we so mistrustthe judgment of the 
public who has voted with their pocket book by purchasingMicrosoft 
products?
    Sincerely,
    Joan Frost



MTC-00033128

From: George Hallock
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Hallock
4034 Selkirk Court
Cypress, CA 90630
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on 
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against 
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George Hallock



MTC-00033129

From: Alfred Lehman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alfred Lehman
1364 Richland Blvd.
Bay Shore, NY 11706-5444
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    Joining many other Americans, I would like to express my support 
for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft 
case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me 
more than $35 million. I have studied the terms of this ruling, and 
I strongly feel that this final approval is clearly in the public 
interest.
    Our greatest boon in this settlement: the Department of Justice 
and the settling states will AVOID ADDITIONAL COSTS and now be able 
to focus their time and resources on matters of greater importance: 
the war against terrorism, and homeland security. As noted by Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
September 11 tragedy,``it's vital for the country to move on 
from this lawsuit.'' I can readily see that the terms of the 
settlement offer a fair resolution for all sides -: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
need not be broken up and can continue to innovate and provide new 
software and products. Software developers and Internet Service 
Providers, including competitors, will now have access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. It's good to know that 
competitors also gain as computer manufacturers are free to 
uninstall any Microsoft application or operating system and install 
other programs. And...Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software makers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. ALSO: a Technical Committee will 
work out of Microsoft's headquarters for five years, at the 
company's expense, to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement. That, too, is acceptable.
    This settlement is fair to the computer users of America. 
Consumers will be able to select from a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers, even find it easier to substitute 
competitor products after purchase.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers, and we certainly ``paid our way''--the 
cost of litigation--through our taxes. Even our investment 
portfolios have taken a hit during this battle, and now more than 
ever, the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change!
    Sincerely,
    Alfred C. Lehman, MS, MSC

[[Page 30001]]



MTC-00033130

From: RICHARD NAPLES
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RICHARD NAPLES
199 INAGUA ST
DANIA BEACH, FL 33004
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    RICHARD D NAPLES



MTC-00033131

From: Thomas Mignini
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Mignini
638 Rocky Hill Rd
Sparks, MD 21152
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mignini



MTC-00033132

From: Edwin Fisch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 9:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edwin Fisch
6113 Bellingham Drive
Castro Valley, CA 94552-1631
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any

[[Page 30002]]

Microsoft application or element of an operating system and install 
other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against 
computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using 
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edwin J. Fisch



MTC-00033133

From: Sharon Riddle
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/22/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Sharon Riddle
    4921 102nd Ln NE
    Kirkland, WA 98033-7641
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033134

From: Thomas Crosswhite
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Crosswhite
127 Lidster Avenue
Grass Valley, CA 95945
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Crosswhite



MTC-00033135

From: Toni Curtis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/22/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Toni Curtis
6960 Deer Bluff Dr
Dayton, OH 45424
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. 
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up computer 
manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after

[[Page 30003]]

purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that 
were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which 
will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Toni J Curtis



MTC-00033136

From: Larry Scott
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Larry Scott
    11211 S.E. 223 pl
    Kent, WA 98031-2634
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033137

From: James Babcock
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 1:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company. 
Respectfully,
    James Babcock
    3410 NE 54th Street
    Vancouver, WA 98661-2025
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033138

From: Theodore W. Guest
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Theodore W. Guest
4366 Carlo Drive
Dayton, OH 45429-4710
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Theodore W. Guest



MTC-00033139

From: WILLIAM SENATORE
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    WILLIAM SENATORE
22718 AUTUMN
NOVI, MI 48374
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As

[[Page 30004]]

noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for 
a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    WILLIAM F. SENATORE



MTC-00033140

From: Frank Muccianti
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Muccianti
338 N. Morris Dr.
Palatine, Il 60074
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Muccianti



MTC-00033141

From: thom
Date: 1/23/02 5:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Regarding the Microsoft settlement, I don't believe that the 
current proposal provides adequate reparations to those injured by 
Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior, nor will restore any 
competitive nature to the high tech market place. Hundred, even 
thousands, of small companies have ceased to exist over the decades 
because of Microsoft's anti-competitive business practices, and I 
fear because of this settlement, in the future Microsoft will put 
the U.S. economy at risk, AND cause a significant problem with our 
national security.
    Even after being found guilty of being an illegal monopoly, 
Microsoft's behavior remains un-changed, if not even more anti-
competitive. Regulation of their behavior, with the threat of severe 
criminal penalties for failure to comply, with an immediate large 
fine ($5+ billion) is the only remedy that I can see will curtail 
them. The market must be able to return to a state of competition.
    In every sense, the USDOJ has failed by signing the proposed 
settlement.
    Thank you,
    Thomas H. Dieterich
    Lynnwood WA 98037



MTC-00033142

From: Pat Starkey
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 5:24am
Subject: Microsoft
    Dear Sir:
    As a registered Republican I am requesting that the suit against 
Microsoft concerning the antitrust settlement between the Department 
of Justice but settled as soon as possible.
    Microsoft company is giving the public what it wants. Remember 
when the government broke up the telephone companies and the 
consumer lost. Our prices rose and the service is much worse.
    Please settle this antitrust settlement as soon as possible and 
give the public what it wants.
    Patricia F. Starkey
    2417 Aubin Lane, Baton Rouge, La. 70816 225-275-6200
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033143

From: Karl L. Zengel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Karl L. Zengel
2301 Linwald Lane
Dayton, OH 45459
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid

[[Page 30005]]

additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Karl L. Zengel



MTC-00033144

From: Gary Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Clark
6507 Cathedral Oaks Drive
Plant City, Fl 33565-6123
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gary B. Clark



MTC-00033145

From: Donald Werle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Werle
238 Gridley Ave
Erie, PA 16508
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which

[[Page 30006]]

will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Don Werle of Erie Pa



MTC-00033146

From: Wesley Daugherty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wesley Daugherty
340 Valley Lane P.O.Box 826
Lebanon, Ky 40033
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Wesley O. Daugherty



MTC-00033147

From: Chris Worley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Sir/Ma'am,
    I find the proposed Microsoft antitrust settlement to be just 
short of an apology to Microsoft.
    It will do nothing to stop their anticompetitive behavior. It 
will do nothing to spur competition in the software industry. It 
gives Microsoft carte blanche to continue to run roughshod over 
consumers and competition.
    The media has well documented that every key provision in this 
settlement has an ``opt out'' loophole that allows 
Microsoft to continue it's anticompetitive behaviors. The future of 
high technology is at stake. If you allow Microsoft to remain 
unchecked, then we are entering a new ``dark ages'' where 
a small minority will control the information vital to innovation. 
The part of the proposal I'm most concerned with is the 
``security'' ``opt out'' in the ``open 
protocols'' section...
    ``Security'' has become a buzzword associated with 
terrorist acts, allowing Microsoft to portray competing vendor's 
software compatibility with authentication software as an act of 
treason. It's just not so. ``Security through obscurity'' 
has never stopped hackers with ill intent, it only keeps those being 
attacked ``in the dark''. It's much like human viri: we 
want to know what can infect us, how to keep from getting infected, 
how to detect the infection, and how to stop the infection (even if 
it can't be stopped). This information is key to our longevity. For 
example, the recent anthrax terrorist acts have shown that public 
information is critical to detection and cure, and the lack of 
information led to unnecessary infection (of postal workers) and 
panic among the uninfected, and did nothing to stop the perpetrator.
    Software viri/worms require the same publicity to protect and 
inform the population.
    I'm afraid Microsoft has negotiated this loophole in the 
settlement for a reason other than protecting consumers: they're 
stopping compatible products from competing under the guise of 
stopping terrorism. For example, a software package called 
``Samba'' competes with Microsoft NT file servers: file 
servers compatible with the protocols that provide you with your 
``network neighborhood''. If Microsoft can hide the 
authentication protocol, then the competing file server software 
can't compete: if you have to have an NT server to authenticate 
users, then you might as well use that server to serve files and not 
use Samba at all (IT departments, in order to simplify their task, 
would prefer not to run servers with different OSes). For Samba to 
compete, it must be able to perform all the necessary protocols for 
Microsoft's network file services. It's all or nothing; it does 
consumers and competition no good for only part of the protocol to 
be published. This is similar to their behavior with API's. By not 
exposing key OS interfaces, they've been able to create special 
``hooks'' into the OS that only their applications can 
use, allowing their applications to have features that the 
competition can't have. It's the same old trick with a new twist, 
under the guise of ``protecting consumers''. This 
settlement is a ruse. It's a trap. And, the DOJ seems overly willing 
to fall for it, to the detriment of competition and consumers.
    Chris Worley
    Salt Lake City, Utah



MTC-00033148

From: Agnes Bode
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Agnes Bode
3124 Longfield Road
Glenwood, MD 21738-9644
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers

[[Page 30007]]

and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to 
continue to innovate and provide new software and products. Software 
developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Agnes Bode



MTC-00033149

From: Jane Magliacane
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jane Magliacane
133 Holly Drive
Gardner, MA 01440
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jane Magliacane



MTC-00033150

From: Frank Ziegler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Ziegler
4035 NE 22nd Ave.
Ocala, Fl 34479-2556
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    Frank I would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Frank Ziegler



MTC-00033151

From: Stephen Storm

[[Page 30008]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Storm
P.O. Box 550
Eastland, TX 76448
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Storm



MTC-00033152

From: Mary Pardo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Pardo
76 Plymouth St.
Montclair, NJ 07042
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mary A. Pardo



MTC-00033153

From: T. C. Hiestand
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
T. C. Hiestand
1361 Duffers Lane
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application

[[Page 30009]]

or element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. and Mrs. T. C. Hiestand



MTC-00033154

From: Joyce L Gorham
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Joyce L Gorham
    2716 s.e. 31st street
    Okeechobee, FL 34974-6747
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033155

From: Charles A White
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles A White
13012 S Oak Park Ave
Palos Heights, Il 60463-2227
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles A White



MTC-00033156

From: Richard Atwater
To: US DOJ
Date: 1/23/02 7:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    As a software professional, and US citizen, I am deeply 
disturbed by the proposed settlement of the Microsoft anti-trust 
case. As I understand it, it imposes no penalties for Microsoft's 
illegal past actions, and does nothing to preclude such acts in the 
future. The settlement should not be accepted as proposed.
    Thank you,
    Richard M. Atwater, Software Engineer
    Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc.
    Indianapolis, IN 46250



MTC-00033157

From: Bert Green
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bert Green
1060 S. U.S. Hwy. 1 Lot 80
Vero Beach, FL 32962-5678
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ,

[[Page 30010]]

the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. 
Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own. Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bert Green



MTC-00033158

From: Joseph Abell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph Abell
4505 South Yosemite, #146
Denver, CO 80237
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    J. M. Abell



MTC-00033159

From: Richard Nakashian
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Nakashian
23 Mariners Ln.
Pocasset, Ma 02559-3150
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Marita Nakashian



MTC-00033160

From: Henry & Virginia Harger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 30011]]

Date: 1/23/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry & Virginia Harger
352 Fernberg Road
Ely, MN 55731
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Henry & Virginia Harger



MTC-00033162

From: Rocky Oliver
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rocky Oliver
3402 Socrates Dr.
Grand Prairie, TX 75052
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rocky Oliver



MTC-00033163

From: RICHARD AND JOYCE RENTEL
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
RICHARD AND JOYCE RENTEL
8508 MAIN ST #B103
EDMONDS, WA 98026
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against

[[Page 30012]]

computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using 
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    RICHARD RENTEL



MTC-00033164

From: Phil Martin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Phil Martin
5583 Old U.S. 41
Lake Park, GA 31636-3490
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Martin, M.D.



MTC-00033165

From: C. W. Berghorn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:19am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. W. Berghorn
11 Chestnut Lane
Pinehurst, NC 28374
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    C. W. Berghorn



MTC-00033166

From: James Krug
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 8:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. This suit should 
never have been brought in the firwt place.
    It is an egregious use of government power to benefit 
Microsoft's competetors. However, I thank you for your decision to 
settle this unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative 
company.
    Respectfully,

[[Page 30013]]

    James Krug
    6125 Troon Ln., S.E.
    Olympia, WA 98501-5174
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033167

From: Donald McLarty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald McLarty
1511 Vassar
Houston, TX 77006
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Don McLarty



MTC-00033168

From: Melodie Avis
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Melodie Avis 15534 Mira Monte Drive
    Houston, TX 77083-4042
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033169

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Zengel
6362 Karlsridge Dr
Dayton, oh 45459
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James M. Zengel



MTC-00033170

From: Louis Prince

[[Page 30014]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Louis Prince
Avenida Melisenda
San Dimas, CA 91773
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Louis D. Prince



MTC-00033171

From: C. Frederick Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:32am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. Frederick Miller
512 Ridgeway Drive
Bellingham, WA 98225
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    C. Frederick Miller



MTC-00033172

From: Duane W. Crimin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Duane W. Crimin
1045 Peach Drive
Ogden, UT 84404-6528
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against

[[Page 30015]]

computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using 
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Duane W. Crimin



MTC-00033173

From: William Rohrbaugh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:51am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Rohrbaugh
912 Sherwood St
Hanover, PA 17331
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    W.Max Rohrbaugh



MTC-00033174

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 10:02am Message-ID: 
<012101c1a438$05d3b950$1b0210ac@bkolev1>
From: ``Bobby Kolev'' 
To: 
Subject: Split was the right thing to do
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:01:45 -0600
    I develop for various platforms, including Palm and PocketPC. I 
see Microsoft as the best tech company around, it is in fact so well 
= postioned that it had already crossed the line of being useful and 
is = dangerous.
    As much as I like and admire their business genius, I believe it 
wasn't = a settlement that needed to be done, but a split. I even 
believe that = would have been for their own (in addition to 
everyone else's) interest = in longer run.
    Regards,
    Bobby Kolev
    www.beiks.com



MTC-00033175

From: alma teuscher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
alma teuscher
933 west main st.
newark, oh 43055
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in

[[Page 30016]]

the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    alma teuscher



MTC-00033176

From: Clarence Van Alstyne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:05am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clarence Van Alstyne
680 Forest Ave.
Fulton, NY 13069-3304
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change. Believe it or 
not, I do not have a nickle of MS stock but like a lot of people 
over the last nine years I become very wary when federal pressure 
through the DOJ or many other federal organizations appears to be 
used to extract huge sums of money for the benefit only of our 
politicians.
    Sincerely,
    Clarence Van Alstyne



MTC-00033177

From: Margaret Meyer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Meyer
11846 Schulze Lane
Ste. Genevieve, MO 63670-8816
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I am signing my name to a letter composed by someone else, but 
it expresses my thoughts better than I would have been able to, so I 
thank you in advance for considering my stand on the Microsoft case 
even though you will have read these words before. I would like to 
express my support for the revised proposed Final Judgment in the 
U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow 
taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret L. Meyer



MTC-00033178

From: Brian Pollard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brian Pollard
PO Box 268
Mount Desert, ME 04660
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties

[[Page 30017]]

worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change. As a lifetime 
executive in the computer industry I KNOW that Microsoft are in a 
lead position because of the skills and competence.
    Their opponents -- Apple, Sun, etc. are trailing because of 
their incompetence and their attempts, unlike Microsoft, to 
monopolize the industry. Apple sought to sell both hardware and 
software, and wouldn't allow anyone else to participate, result !% 
of the market. Sun attempts the same and is losing market share. Go 
into any store and see the myriuar of computes and software with 
names other than Microsoft--all there BECAUSE of Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Brian W. Pollard



MTC-00033179

From: Sonnia Bean
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 10:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Sonnia Bean
    13619 Sandy Point E. KPN
    Gig Harbor, WA 98329-5684
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033180

From: Carol Stankovsky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:35am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carol Stankovsky
1917 Empire Drive
Waukesha, WI 53186
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carol Stankovsky



MTC-00033181

From: Kathy Clancy
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement --CC: On letter to the Americans 
for Technology Leadership
January 23, 2002
    To Americans for Technology Leadership:
    I find it absurd that you request a letter from our chamber of 
commerce for the expidited settlement of the Microsoft case when 
your mission states that you are ``dedicated to limiting 
government regulation of technology and fostering competitive market 
solutions to public policy issues affecting the technology 
industry.'' Our business have many diverse opinions, and I 
would bet they would not side with your slanted view.
    Microsoft is like big brother and seeks to squelch all and any 
competition. Tell me, how this is going to ``foster competitive 
markets''? They have a history of squeezing competitors while 
it makes memory and size

[[Page 30018]]

gobbling, inefficient programs. Consumers can demand higher quality, 
but Microsoft will dish out what it wants--there's no one else 
to get the milk from! As a degreed Systems Analyst and experience as 
a beta tester for Microsoft, I tell you that it's worth the money to 
pressure them. When the government gives in, who else will be able 
to move the giant? Don't be stupid and influenced by the money. 
There are principles involved and the future of truly fostering 
technological innovation is at risk.
    This is the note I'll send to the Ms. Hesse.
    Respectfully,
    Kathryn Clancy
    Executive Director
    Painesville Area Chamber of Commerce
    www.painesvilleohchamber.org
    440-357-7572



MTC-00033182

From: earl jones
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
earl jones
105 southwestern pl.
sequim, , wa 98382
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    earl l. jones



MTC-00033183

From: Mary E. Vaughn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary E. Vaughn
1589 Riverside Dr. Apt A
South Bend, In 46616-1608
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ms. Mary E. Vaughn



MTC-00033184

From: William Simpson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Simpson
4856 Glenn Abbey way
Banning, CA 92220
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties

[[Page 30019]]

worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William T. Simpson



MTC-00033186

From: Dorman W. Arnold
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorman W. Arnold
39 The Orchard
Fayetteville, NY 13066-2254
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dorman W. Arnold



MTC-00033187

From: Joseph B. Taphorn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joseph B. Taphorn
8 Scenic Drive
Poughkeepsie, NY 12603-5521
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in

[[Page 30020]]

the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    joseph B. Taphorn



MTC-00033188

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 10:57am Message-ID: 
<[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:59:57 -0800
From: Jeff Evarts 
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    I would like to comment on the potential resolutions to the 
Microsoft situation.
    I am familiar with the marketing practices of Microsoft, and 
belive that there are two reasonable ways to dispense with this 
monopoly:
    (1) An open formats solution
    (*) Force Microsoft to document (openly, or for a reasonable 
fee) the complete input, output, and/or file formats of all its 
individually salable components. This would include, but not be 
limited to:
    (*) File formats such as .doc, .xls,
    (*) APIs such as their device driver API
    (*) Wire formats such as file sharing protocols, etc.
    Other companies do this, and the public is the better for it. 
Other companies do this and still make a profit.
    Microsoft leverages the fact that their left hand and right hand 
are synchronized, and this yields a large part of its power to 
monopolize the desktop. If, for instance, they fully described the 
format of .doc files, and made sure that any file of that format was 
readable in Word, and that Word created files of only that format, 
then people could migrate to and from Microsoft products AS BEST 
SUITS THEM. This would allow market forces rather than monopoly 
forces to dominate.
    (2) A vertical split of the company
    (*) Force microsoft to be vertically split at the OS and Office 
levels. Give the source code for Windows/NT, Windows/ME, Windows/
2000 to three different companies, and allow no one to hold 
positions on more than one BoD, etc.
    The competition between the three OS firms for the Office 
business, as well as vice versa, would (hopefully) yield more 
opportunities for the non-MS alternatives. I believe the first one 
is a far better solution than the second, but the second would be 
acceptable. The current proposed solutions are weak, in that they 
attempt to fix the problem with long-term enforcement, rather than 
changing the rules today so that the market solves the problem 
later. Microsoft's solution: giving lots of Software and Hardware to 
Schools, is laughable. It would increase their market share and 
mindshare without actually hurting the company or reshaping it in 
any significant way. I strongly urge that this opportunity to fix 
the monopolistic practices of
    Microsoft be taken seriously, as subsequent attempts will be at 
a great disadvantage if this fails.
    --Jeff



MTC-00033189

From: Franklin L. DeRemer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Franklin L. DeRemer
8 South Circle Drive
Santa Cruz, CA 95060-1800
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely, Franklin L. DeRemer



MTC-00033190

From: Philip A. McHugh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:03am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Philip A. McHugh
48 Chippendale Dr.
Mount Sinai, NY 11766
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented

[[Page 30021]]

enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This casewas supposedly brought on behalf of American consumers. 
We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. Our 
investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, and 
now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Philip A. McHugh



MTC-00033191

From: Patrick Payne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patrick Payne
1064 Bardstown Road
Louisville, KY 40204
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, Competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
Competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft Competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
Competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely, Patrick Payne



MTC-00033192

From: Shirley Marsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shirley Marsh
1773 Vassar Ave.,
Mountain View, CA 94043
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, Competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
Competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft Competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
Competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Shirley S. Marsh



MTC-00033193

From: Shirley Marsh
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:11am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shirley Marsh
1773 Vassar Ave.,
Mountain View,, CA 94043
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.

[[Page 30022]]

    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, Competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
Competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft Competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
Competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Shirley S. Marsh



MTC-00033194

From: Mary H. Polliard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary H. Polliard
28900 Wight Rd.
Malibu, Ca 90265-4001
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, Competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
Competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft Competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
Competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mary H. & Tom Polliard



MTC-00033195

From: Norval Nickerson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norval Nickerson
2035 Vista Cajon
Newport Beach, CA 92660-3911
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after

[[Page 30023]]

purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that 
were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which 
will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Norval E. Nickerson



MTC-00033196

From: Kenneth Clare
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kenneth Clare
5239 Franceen Lane
Stockton, CA 95212
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Clare



MTC-00033197

From: George Yablonsky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
George Yablonsky
2717 S. Poplar St.
Santa Ana, CA 92704
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George Yablonsky



MTC-00033198

From: Cecilia Maisel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Cecilia Maisel
364 Villa Oaks Ln.
Gahanna, OH 43230-6773
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties

[[Page 30024]]

worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Cecilia Maisel



MTC-00033199

From: Margaret Reichard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret Reichard
76 Seaview Ave.
Brick, NJ 08723-7220
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret C. Reichard



MTC-00033200

From: Eric Thomas
To: U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/23/02 11:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    U.S. Department of Justice,
    Regarding the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft, I would like to express my concern that this proposed 
settlement is unacceptable in several key areas. Among them are the 
following:
    1. Microsoft would be allowed to continue many anti-competitive 
practices aimed at preventing other vendors from including their 
products in OEM packages.
    2. There is no way to enforce the judgment, other than more and 
more drawn-out legal proceeding.
    I hope that the Department of Justice and the court will pay 
heed to the many voices pointing out the problems in this settlement 
and look for stronger remedies that will better serve the 
marketplace and the public interest.
    Regards,
    Eric Thomas
    Leominster, MA
    Eric [email protected]://
www.isti.com
    Tel: (978) 537-9049
    Instrumental Software Technologies, Inc.
    Systems Integration and Software Development Specialists



MTC-00033201

From: Warren W. Bestwick
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Warren W. Bestwick
233 No. State St.
Bellingham, WA 98225-5323
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able

[[Page 30025]]

to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Warren W. Bestwick



MTC-00033202

From: Lorin Meeder
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lorin Meeder
301 Roan Creek Drive
Parachute, CO 81635
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Lorin S. Meeder



MTC-00033203

From: Russell Gardner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 11:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Russell Gardner
500 E. Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    R.M. Gardner



MTC-00033204

From: arne olsen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
arne olsen
6035 verde trl.s.
boca raton, fl 33433
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 30026]]

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    a.m.olsen



MTC-00033205

From: Frank Brunner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Brunner
70 Blackhawk
Park Forest, IL 60466-2146
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    F.G. Brunner



MTC-00033206

From: James Stephens
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Stephens
3418 N. Susan Dr.
Decatur, , IL 62526-1332
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense,

[[Page 30027]]

and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Stephens



MTC-00033207

From: William Mason
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Mason
639 S Fremont Circle
Green Valley, AZ 85614
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William T Mason



MTC-00033208

From: Robert Koch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Koch
621 Luther Road
Harrisburg, PA 17111-2057
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Koch



MTC-00033209

From: Harvey and Charlene Knowles
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been

[[Page 30028]]

unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's antitrust 
case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like myself 
have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Harvey and Charlene Knowles
    7603--148th ST E
    Puyallup, WA 98375-7019
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033210

From: William Meigs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Meigs
615 Jackson Heights
Danville, VA 24540-1051
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William R. Meigs



MTC-00033211

From: W. Robert Bloyer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
W. Robert Bloyer
10901 Graystone Dr.
Hagerstown, MD 21740-7649
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    W. Robert Bloyer



MTC-00033212

From: Robert Curry
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Curry
5529 Tangelo Street
Leesberg, FL 34748-8997
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism,

[[Page 30029]]

including homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert C. Curry



MTC-00033213

From: Alice Palumbo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alice Palumbo
15366 Sabre Dr.
Corpus Christi, TX 78418
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Alice Palumbo



MTC-00033214

From: Harold Hardison
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 12:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Hardison
2545 Jetport Rd
Kinston, NC 28504
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 30030]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios 
have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, 
the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sen. Harold Hardison



MTC-00033215

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: gov
Date: 1/23/02 12:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am against the proposed settlement of the DOJ suit against 
Microsoft. Although Microsoft claims that they have innovated, those 
of us more intimately aware of the truth are not fooled. In fact, 
they have squashed far more innovative competitors with the kind of 
illegal actions of which they have been found guilty. Even worse, 
they have lowered accepted standards of reliability greatly, with 
the result being tremendous loss of productivity internationally as 
their operating systems crash and are compromised by numerous 
viruses. Any settlement needs to prevent Microsoft from continuing 
on this path of anti-competitive behavior. The proposed settlement 
seems far too weak to accomplish this necessary goal.
    Laura Wallace
    Quality Assurance Engineer
    3 Hilda Rd.
    Bedford, MA 01730



MTC-00033216

From: Faye E. Gardner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Faye E. Gardner
10500 Academy, NE #334
Albuquerque, NM 87111
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Faye E. Gardner



MTC-00033217

From: Robert Montgomery
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Montgomery 
W. Coronet Dr.
Sun City West, AZ 85375-5122
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert M. Montgomery



MTC-00033218

From: Robert Cooch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Cooch
2701 Daleview
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

[[Page 30031]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. Cooch



MTC-00033219

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are several issues that the proposed settlement needs to 
address, in order that Microsoft not walk away unpunished for their 
CRIMINAL behaviour.

1. Protecting Open Source

    The proposed final settlement offer contains language intended 
to let Microsoft itself determine who is qualified to have access to 
the technical information intended to allow other operating systems 
to interoperate with Microsoft software. In point of fact, the 
language specifically claims their right to require that those party 
to interoperability information be businesses. This is clearly 
intended to to discriminate against the MANY software projects that 
are run entirely as volunteer efforts. The court should require that 
any technical information that Microsoft is required to disclose 
must be available to the public, so that the public itself might act 
in redressing the harm created by Microsoft's illegal tactics.
    2. Closed File Formats Are A tool of Monopoly One of the most 
insidious tactics used by Microsoft in the construction of their 
monopoly in business productivity and personal computing software is 
the creation of incompatible, undocumented file formats. In addition 
the tactic of making new versions of their software produce files 
that were incompatible with their old software led to their being in 
effect able to require users of their software to upgrade their 
systems on their schedule.
    The fact that Microsoft's file formats were undocumented has 
meant that competitors were effectively locked out of providing 
equivalent services to consumers who had unwisely chosen to use 
Microsoft products and that those consumers were themselves harmed 
in that their property was held hostage to Microsoft's software and 
would need to be either abandoned or (at great expense) converted to 
some other format.

3. Security Needs Of Consumers and Appropriate Liability

    A further issue that could be addressed by the court is 
Microsoft's liability for the millions of person-hours of time 
wasted in dealing with the inadequacies of their operating system 
and of their email products.
    A clear statement by the court that consumers had at a minimum 
an implied warranty of functionality, including an expectation of 
data privacy in the form of mechanisms to prevent both Microsoft 
itself and others from altering, destroying or illicitly copying 
data without it's owners permission; would set a clear precedent 
that software is the same as any other class of product and should 
not be allowed to exempt itself from product liability through 
specious End User License Agreements. In that a product sold in 
exchange for value should meet a reasonable buyers expectations for 
functionality and safety.



MTC-00033220

From: Robert Noonan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Noonan
112Massachusetts Rd
New Bern, NC 28562
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 30032]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios 
have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, 
the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert J Noonan



MTC-00033221

From: Irma Schneider
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irma Schneider
114 Fairfield Circle
Ventura, CA 93003-8850
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Irma A. Schneider



MTC-00033222

From: Glen W. Mabey
Date: 1/23/02 1:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern: I would like to comment on the Proposed 
Final Judgement in the United States vs. Microsoft case.
    My concern relates to the absence of requirements for Microsoft 
to disclose file formats used by its programs. This issue has been 
established as a part of the Applications Barrier to Entry in 
Findings of Fact paragraphs 20 and 39.
    The pervasive use of Microsoft Office products has rendered 
their respective file formats as the de facto standard for normal 
office document interchange. However, since the format of these 
documents is unpublished, there is no reason to believe that this 
monopolistic situation will change any time in the near future.
    Only a legally mandated disclosure of these file formats can 
hope to restore a competetive nature to this aspect of computing. 
Furthermore, I believe that given previous behavior by Microsoft, 
the following stipulation is also necessary: that any inaccuracy in 
the published specification for these file formats result in a 
punishment which is;
    *) severe,
    *) automatic, and
    *) that the consequences for doing so be also stipulated in the
    Final Judgement.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Glen Mabey



MTC-00033223

From: Jean Noonan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jean Noonan
112Massachusetts Rd
New Bern, NC 28562
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jean Noonan



MTC-00033224

From: johnoburghart
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 30033]]

Date: 1/23/02 1:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The provisions of the agreement are tough, reasonable, fair to 
all parties involved, and go beyond the findings of the Court of 
Appeals ruling; however the settlement is not guaranteed until after 
the review ends and the District Court determines whether the terms 
are indeed in the public interest. John O Burghart



MTC-00033225

From: Alfred Bivens
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alfred Bivens
508 Meadows Drive S.
Richland, WA 99352-7731
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    A. H. Bivens, Major, USMC (Ret)



MTC-00033226

From: Carl Thomas
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Thomas
164 Kimberlea Road
Madison Heights, VA 24572-6131
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carl E. Thomas



MTC-00033227

From: Chet Boreck
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chet Boreck
3 Wales Court
Forked River, NJ 08731
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ,

[[Page 30034]]

the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. 
Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Chet Boreck



MTC-00033228

From: jonpi
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 2:16pm
Subject: Re: [lug] Microsoft Settlement
alta wrote:
Department of Justice:
    During my 25-year span as a computer professional, I have 
watched Microsoft grow. I continue to be appalled that Microsoft has 
been able to sell unreliable, defective products using the following 
practices:
--Advertising non-existent products to kill legitimate 
competition.
--Buying companies in order to kill them
--Forcing large distributors to install Microsoft, only.
--Covering defective product internals with glitter and gold.
--Licenses that give them immunity to damage from defective 
products.
--Large campaign contributions to buy protection from 
government.

    The result has been:

--Many innovative companies have been destroyed.
--The world-dominant operating system (Windows) is defective,
--Users have come to expect that software crashes are normal.
--Due to licensing practices allowed in our (and other) 
countries,
--Microsoft is the only business of its size that is 
unaccountable
--for damages due to defects in its products.
--Windows is a serious threat to national security and to 
businesses.
--Now under investigation, they STILL continue these practices.
--Even the US government seems unable to touch this monopoly.
    I ask that you do what needs to be done with Microsoft. Please 
protect our national security, and give technological users and 
innovators a chance.
    I started to write to the doj and ended up getting too angry to 
form sentences what you are seeing is your dept of justice about to 
do injustice...so it goes you can't fight city hall but you can be 
sure none of your assets go to mr big bad scared little boy billy 
boy gates in times of justice he would go down in a hail of bullets, 
forget pies yes...let's watch our doj at work in the mean 
time...sell all your redhat stock and buy kmart stock...before 
monday and, ponder why peak is not just dialup...JUST!!!
    jonpi
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033229

From: Carl Thornton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Thornton
2357 Caminito Afuera
San Diego, Ca 92107-1512
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar
--Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of 
September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from this 
lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, 
which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather than 
months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carl F Thornton



MTC-00033230

From: Howard Rathlesberger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Howard Rathlesberger
230 Ridgeway Road
Woodside, CA 94062
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar
--Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of 
September 11, it is vital for

[[Page 30035]]

the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked 
extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of 
taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now when 
all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Howard & Jean Rathlesberger



MTC-00033231

From: Arthur Beaman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arthur Beaman
1673 Nottingham Dr.
Winter Park, FL 32792-2225
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Wayne Beaman



MTC-00033232

From: Vance Mitchell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vance Mitchell
1200 Polnell Shore Drive E.
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance--the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case--the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever,

[[Page 30036]]

the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Vance F. Mitchell



MTC-00033233

From: Irving Thorn
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Irving Thorn
1709 Pegasus Ave.
Rio Rancho, NM 87124-2919
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    IIrving Thorn



MTC-00033234

From: Everett DeJager
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:21pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Everett DeJager
8622 Plainfield Lane
Cincinnati, OH 45236-1704
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance--the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case--the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Everett DeJager



MTC-00033235

From: Anna Mae Frahm
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anna Mae Frahm
22946 594 Ave
Mankato, MN 56001-8525
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance--the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case--the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate

[[Page 30037]]

and provide new software and products. Software developers and 
Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. 
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up computer 
manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Anna Mae Frahm



MTC-00033236

From: Diane Williams
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Williams
3742 W. South Blvd
Rochester Hills, MI 48309-3975
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John and Diane Williams



MTC-00033237

From: Rosemary Daleo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rosemary Daleo
1410 N. 13th Ave.
MELROSE PARK, IL 60160
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rosemary Daleo & Paula Daleo



MTC-00033238

From: Orval D Grieser
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:34pm

[[Page 30038]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Orval D Grieser
116 Quail Run
Archbold, Oh 43502
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Orval D. Grieser



MTC-00033239

From: Patricia Thompson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Patricia Thompson
6205 Hancock
Rowlett, tx 75088
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Patricia Thompson



MTC-00033240

From: Kathryn Bell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kathryn Bell
4326 Gum Branch Road
Jacksonville, NC 28540-9118
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance--the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case--the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against

[[Page 30039]]

computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using 
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kathryn Bell



MTC-00033242

From: Steve Hensley
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Steve Hensley
    3615 Garrett Road
    Durham, NC 27707-2444
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033243

From: Walter Rittwage
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Rittwage
73 Hullcrest Road
Shelburne, VT 05482
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Walter G Rittwage



MTC-00033244

From: Michael Patterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Patterson
9904 NE 124th St. #1006
Kirkland, WA 98034 January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a

[[Page 30040]]

Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Patterson



MTC-00033245

From: Herman Pusin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herman Pusin
830 West 40 St. Apt. 855
Baltimore , MD 21211
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Herman Pusin



MTC-00033246

From: Sidney Miller
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 4:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sidney Miller
9217 Nile Dr
New Port Richey, FL 34655-1609
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement. Most importantly, this settlement is 
fair to the computer users and consumers of America, on whose behalf 
the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers will be able to select a 
variety of pre-installed software on their computers. It will also 
be easier to substitute competitors' products after purchase as 
well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that were not 
part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to 
be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sidney T Miller



MTC-00033247

From: empty
To: Tunney Act
Date: 1/23/02 4:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose the proposed Microsoft anti-trust settlement.
    Mark Ball



MTC-00033248

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/23/02 4:57pm
Subject: MIME-Version: 1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Smartcode ObjectSet 1.0
From: John Gillis 
Subject: microsoft settlement
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:55:00
Organization: John Gillis/Architects
To: [email protected]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
boundary=``=PMail:=--0002

[[Page 30041]]

@@PDWk9CkPIN4OlECsfX6U''
Message-ID: 
--=PMail:=--0002@@PDWk9CkPIN4OlECsfX6U

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001 =
    Dear District Court Judge:
    My comment on the Microsoft settlement is that Microsoft should 
be left alone. = T
    he antitrust case should never have been brought against the 
company. The idea that Microsoft is a monopoly is not only false, 
but my own persona= l experience adds additional proof.
    None of the systems in our office use Microsoft products, so how 
can it be that Microsoft is a coercive monopoly. How come they 
haven't coerced our company?
    Nonetheless millions of people have freely chosen to use Windows 
and other Microsoft products. It is shameful that the government has 
gone after this innovative company.
    Sincerely,
    John Gillis/Architects
    41 East 11th Street
    New York, NY 10003
    212 254 5010
    212 777 9224 fax
    [email protected] 
--=PMail:=--0002@@PDWk9CkPIN4OlECsfX6U--




MTC-00033249

From: Wiliam Kent
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wiliam Kent
367 E 600 S
Monroe, UT 84754
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William Kent



MTC-00033250

From: Harold Keebler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harold Keebler
76838 Abby Ct
Palm Desert, Ca 92211-7102
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Harold M. Keebler



MTC-00033251

From: Jeannine Kocsis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 5:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeannine Kocsis
102 Deerfield Ave
Port Charlotte , FL 33952
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200

[[Page 30042]]

Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jeannine M. Kocsis



MTC-00033252

From: Michael A. Teutsch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael A. Teutsch
822 Almasy Dr.
Campbell, Oh 44405-2002
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    Please be advised that as a taxpayer and consumer I support the 
Microsoft Settlement and hopefully a prompt court acceptance to 
prevent lengthy litigation that could cost my fellow taxpayers and 
me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the terms of this 
Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public interest.
    It will be a great benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states to avoid 
additional costs and be able to focus their time and resources on 
matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, and the taxpayers deserve the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted at great 
cost to all Americans.
    Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be 
able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. 
Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up computer 
manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael A. Teutsch



MTC-00033253

From: CHARLES Lee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
CHARLES Lee
601 N 4th St
Mascoutah, IL 62258-1205
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of

[[Page 30043]]

America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly filed. Consumers 
will be able to select a variety of pre-installed software on their 
computers. It will also be easier to substitute competitors' 
products after purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and 
software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows 
XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles Lee



MTC-00033254

From: John Culver
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Culver
19 Hammersmith Dr
Saugus, MA 01906-4170
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Culver



MTC-00033255

From: Francis Bagbey
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis Bagbey
103 Green Park Lane
Cary, NC 27511
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Francis C. Bagbey



MTC-00033256

From: Jim & Louise Georgen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 6:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim & Louise Georgen
7308 sw 35th Avenue
Portland, or 97219-1745
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism,

[[Page 30044]]

including homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jim & Louise Georgen



MTC-00033257

From: Joe Sunthimer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Sunthimer
RR4 Box 207
Nevada, MO 64772-9234
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Sunthimer



MTC-00033258

From: Lon Wells
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lon Wells
28126 Peacock Ridge Dr. #105
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 30045]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios 
have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, 
the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Lon Wells



MTC-00033259

From: Norman Brubaker
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 8:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Norman Brubaker
233 Monroe Street
Bridgewater, NJ 08807-3043
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my sincere support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost USA taxpayers more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Probably the greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: like the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, which will have to be modified to comply with the 
settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Norman H. Brubaker



MTC-00033260

From: Tom Kulaga
To: MS ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am entirely against the current settlement proposal. Calling 
it a slap on the wrist would be overstating the case, and if the 
Court believes Microsoft is in violation of any anti-trust statutes, 
the Court is honor-bound to determine whether the proposed 
settlement offers anything remotely close to a remedy.
    The current settlement does nothing of the kind. Microsoft 
should be separated into an Operating System division and a Software 
and Applications division. They should be entirely seperate 
entities, with no sharing in any area, especially sales and 
marketing. Leaving them intact is akin to allowing Ford Motor 
Company to control the Department of Transportation, giving them the 
option of changing the rules of the road to accept only the cars 
they build, leaving other auto companies to go broke following a 
target they'll never hit.
    So long as Microsoft's sales and marketing people can dictate a 
combined product strategy for Operating Systems and Applications, 
the Internet Explorer/Netscape issue will continue to happen, with 
only the victims changing names.
    Regards,
    Tom Kulaga



MTC-00033261

From: Richard Conway
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Conway
88715 Potter Ln.
Springfield, OR 97478-9616
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard L. Conway



MTC-00033262

From: Michael Stanzel
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/23/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust

[[Page 30046]]

lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, state attorneys 
general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud the nine state 
attorneys general that decided to follow the federal government's 
lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed that 
remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia have 
decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael Stanzel
    2510 96th Ave Ct E
    Edgewood, WA 98371-2172
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033263

From: Paul Roebuck
To: USDJ
Date: 1/23/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    What a pathetic crock of shit. Two years of legal proceedings 
for this? This has been a complete waste of time and money on 
everyone's part if nothing was really intended to be done about 
antitrust abuse.
    Tis indeed a sad day that the US government lays down before MS. 
Yet another slap on the wrist that will be ignored. Unfortunate for 
Netscape and all the others before it that essentially nothing will 
be done.
    Should have stuck with the breakup decision... if MS Office was 
available on alternative platforms (like Linux), Windows would have 
to stand on its own merits. Then users could choose office software 
separately from OS software. It would also prevent any more of this 
application/OS blending since the application could not be made 
cross-platform.
    Out of the 10Base-T, through the router, down the T1, over the 
leased line, off the bridge, past the firewall... nothing but Net.



MTC-00033264

From: Roman Peisinger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Roman Peisinger
1 Towers Park Lane #915
San Antoniol, TX 78209-6435
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Roman J. Peisinger



MTC-00033265

From: Robert Lloyd
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Lloyd
6314 Allott
Van Nuys, ca 91401
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I support the revised proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. 
Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost more than $35 
million. Enough is enough.
    The parties worked very hard to reach this agreement, which has 
the benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now. The terms of the settlement are fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
This settlement is in the public interest. I urge the DOJ to submit 
the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court 
without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Lloyd



MTC-00033266

From: J(038)B Seybold
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 11:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    While the proposed settlement appears to meet the defined goals, 
I am very concerned that the definition of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' in the ``REVISED PROPOSED FINAL 
JUDGMENT'' is far too narrow and restrictive. Specifically, in 
``Section IV, Definitions'', paragraph K.2.b.i, the 
definition states ``...is, or in the year preceding the 
commercial release of any new Windows Operating System Product was, 
distributed separately by Microsoft (or by an entity acquired by 
Microsoft) from a Windows Operating System Product...''
    This definition appears to exclude functionality which was based 
directly upon or substantially identical in function to the a 
previous commercial product, but where said functionality was 
modified by Microsoft. This is a major exclusion, because it is very 
rare in commercial software for unchanged software to published for 
two consecutive years. It is common practice for Microsoft to modify 
software, either by reducing functionality, or by adding 
functionality, when incorporating the functionality of previously 
commercial software. Under the provisions of the proposed 
definition, similar but distinctly different functionality would 
exclude such modified software from the Microsoft Middleware Product 
definition.

[[Page 30047]]

Microsoft could therefore make small or even trivial changes in 
software that would otherwise be clearly defined as Microsoft Middle 
Product, and thereby claim that it was exempt from the provisions of 
this judgment.
    Further, the definition of ``Microsoft Middleware 
Product'' in the ``REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT'' 
carefully excludes new software functionality developed by Microsoft 
and included as Microsoft Middleware or as part of the Windows 
operating system, with the intent of competing directly with 
commercially available software to reduce competition. The pattern 
shown in the development and release of Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, and Outlook Express is now being repeated in many other 
areas. For example, the capabilities of Microsoft Backup has been 
extended to include the file backup functionality provided by 
NovaStor Corporation's NovaDisk, or Veritas Corporation's Backup 
Exec. Since NovaStor and Veritas have not been acquired by 
Microsoft, Microsoft Backup does not meet the definition of a 
Microsoft Middleware Product.
    Therefore, I suggest that the Proposed Final Judgment does not 
provide the necessary restrictions to preclude continued 
anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft to unlawfully protect and 
maintain its operating system monopoly in violation of Section 2 of 
the Sherman Act. I suggest that Specifically, in ``Section IV, 
Definitions'', paragraph K.2.b.i, be modified to state 
``i. is, or in the year preceding the commercial release of any 
new Windows Operating System Product was, distributed separately by 
from a Windows Operating System Product,''
    thank you for your consideration
    John B. Seybold



MTC-00033267

From: Fabretti, Ron C
To: ``Ms. Renatta Hesse''
Date: 1/24/02 3:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Renatta Hesse,
    Ill conceived and misdirected is how I view the antitrust suit 
against Microsoft. The attack against Microsoft is an attack against 
the freedom to pursue a private business enterprise in an open 
market. Credit for the attack goes to the many bureaucratic 
socialists, collectivists, or worse, of the last administration. 
Microsoft's business success results in compounding new 
opportunities and unseen business dynamics. They should be blamed? 
Where were the plaintiffs when Microsoft began? Microsoft could have 
been purchased by any number if industry giants during Microsoft's 
humble beginnings. Now, after Microsoft succeeds in a market that no 
one foresaw, they are at fault? No matter what they do to grow their 
business, outside of physical harm to humanity, they should be free 
to pursue the business of providing a service for a price. No fair 
stepping in after the fact and changing the rules, something 
socialists and collectivists do to be involved, for the supposed 
good of mankind, when ``free'' welfare is what they really 
dream of. Bill Gates worked long and hard for many years and had no 
idea 20 years ago his company would be where it is today. He should 
run it as he sees fit without interference from any entity. And 20 
years is insignificant compared to the millions supposedly before us 
or hopefully after us. By the way, I'd guess Bill Gates does plenty, 
out of his own pocket, to pursue the health and welfare of mankind 
in general.
    Respectfully yours,
    Ronald Fabretti
    1205 Hon Falls 5 Pts Rd
    Honeoye Falls, NY 14472



MTC-00033268

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 5:09am
Subject: just putting in my $.02:
    just putting in my $.02:
    Integrating Internet explorer wiht windows *should* have sent up 
red flags. you cant swing a webpage in widows without using Internet 
explorer. you cant even uninstall it (it installs automatically on 
win98 and above) without considerable knowledge.
    how can one expect a person who doesnt know much about computers 
to run netscape if they choose (or any other browser for that 
matter) microsoft should be broken up into smaller companies. and 
have to compete. microsoft makes games that can only be played on 
microsoft platforms. that should be one company browsers should be 
de-integrated and installed by choice. browser should be a different 
company.
    and the Operating system should be built alone. another company.
    this would encourage better programming on the part of microsoft 
makeing for a better product for the consumer. and more jobs on the 
market. (from competeing companies and MS itself)
    again just my $.02
    Andy Nelson
    Certified computer nerd!



MTC-00033269

From: Joe Scoglio
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 5:17am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Joe Scoglio
573 Shirley St
Winthrop, MA 02152
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Scoglio



MTC-00033270

From: Jim Denison
To: ASKDOJ
Date: 1/24/02 5:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    12824 Midway Road #1140
Dallas, Texas 75244
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing today to express my strong sentiments on the 
Microsoft anti-trust dispute. I support Microsoft in this, and I 
feel the settlement reached on November 6, 2001,

[[Page 30048]]

is fair and reasonable. I am happy to see that this dispute has been 
resolved.
    I believe that Microsoft has had a positive impact on the 
technology industry and the economy. Microsoft has made it easier 
for the average consumer to conduct business. I believe the 
technology revolution that we have experienced in the last decade 
would not have been possible without contributions from Microsoft.
    I feel this settlement will serve in the best interest of the 
public. Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Jim Denison
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033271

From: Thomas Huvane
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thomas Huvane
46 Bradley Road
Scarsdale, NY 10583
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Huvane



MTC-00033272

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: dept. of justice
Date: 1/24/02 6:31am
Subject: Microsoft settelment -------- Original 
Message --------
Subject: Open file formats
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:21:52 -0500
From: Marek Kiela 
To: ``dept. of justice'' 

    I would like to comment on the Microsoft case.
    There should be a push towards opening Microsoft file formats ( 
ea.. Word, Excel ) if government doesn't want to find itself in a 
position where Bill Gates will dictate when and what software to use 
and how much to put in his coffers.
    It only make sense that user should be able to use any word 
processor to open a document, or any spreadsheet program to open a 
spreadsheet and so on.
    You do not have to break company apart to force competition. 
Just insist that in order to get government software contracts, it 
has to be open file format.
    Regards
    Marek Kiela
    [email protected]
    Canada



MTC-00033273

From: Beth Jelinski
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 6:34am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am sick and tired of the jealousy and pettiness of this 
lawsuit against Microsoft. The consumers who are supposedly hurt are 
not being helped by the lawsuit. It seems to me it is socialism in 
action. ``Everyone should be equal; no one can show up anyone 
else by their excellence in product production or shrewdness in 
marketing'' etc. etc. It is like unto those who take all the 
fun out of Little League competition by giving EVERYONE a 
meaningless trophy. The lawsuit against
    Microsoft, in a childish way, send the message ``You can't 
win. There can be no winners. If there are winners, they will be 
coerced to share their winnings with the loser who puts up the 
biggest fuss.'' I say, let the losers,
    Netscape in this case, find a better way to EXCEL; and then they 
won't be crying about Microsoft's success, but touting their own.
    I dare say if that happened they would be very chagrined and 
reluctant to hand over their newly acquired profits to Microsoft.
    Let us rather put an end to this government favoritism and let 
capitalism thrive producing better products for us all. Competition 
and freedom are what have driven all of our great accomplishments. 
We all suffer when slavery is enforced.
    Sincerely,
    Beth Jelinski
    166 State Street
    Bloomfield, NJ 07003



MTC-00033274

From: Anne Gille
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Anne Gille
810 Shady Way
Arlington Hts,, IL 60005
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's

[[Page 30049]]

programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Anne M. Gille



MTC-00033275

From: Gail Rollin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gail Rollin
303 Jenny's Cove Road
Cleveland, GA 30528
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance ? the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gail Rollin



MTC-00033276

From: ROBERT MAXWELL
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROBERT MAXWELL
974 QUESTA E.
VENICE, FL 34292
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    ROBERT J. MAXWELL



MTC-00033277

From: Perry Sowell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
perry sowell
340tate
senatobia, ms 38668

[[Page 30050]]

January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    perry sowell



MTC-00033278

From: Daren Wade
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daren Wade
312 SE Colony Dr
Lee's Summit, MO 64063-3209
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Daren Wade



MTC-00033279

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 6:58am
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,
    Jim Cramer
    100 Farmers Bank Square
    suite 230
    Georgetown, KY 40324



MTC-00033280

From: Bill Rinker
To: U.S. Dept. Justice
Date: 1/24/02 7:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The AOL Time Warner/Netscape should not be considered and 
consequently thrown out of court. I see no evidence that Microsoft 
has interfered illegally with the distribution of the Netscape 
Browser. Don't be pressured into litigation from the big AOL Time 
Warner complex. It's sour grapes because they cannot keep up with 
their Microsoft competition. These kinds of litigation will 
eventually stifle innovation & ideas. Why should Microsoft 
suffer when they have the best browser called Microsoft Internet 
Explorer? Why should Companies share their ideas with competition?
    Bill Rinker
    P.O. Box 333
    Moran, Wyoming 83013

[[Page 30051]]



MTC-00033281

From: grace gault
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 7:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
grace gault
2354 wilderness hill
san antonio, tx 78231-1826
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Grace Gault & Aggie Ussery



MTC-00033282

From: newman
To: DOJ
Date: 1/24/02 7:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear DOJ:
    I believe that the proposed Microsoft settlement is fair and 
that a speedie resolution to this matter is in the best interest of 
the public.
    James B. Newman



MTC-00033283

From: Herbert Ziff
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 7:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Herbert Ziff
661 Wall St.
Elmira, NY 14905-1423
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Herbert M. Ziff



MTC-00033284

From: Jerry Friesen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Friesen
1006 E. Harding Drive
Appleton, WI 54915
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ,

[[Page 30052]]

the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. 
Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Friesen



MTC-00033285

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:16am
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,
    Randy Norton
    877 Valley Chapel Road
    Walla Walla, WA 99362



MTC-00033286

From: RROBERT KINNEY
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:24am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
2 THORNWOOD CT
SETAUKET, NY 11733-1823
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    ROBERT KINNEY



MTC-00033287

From: Stephen Starliper
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Starliper
12300 Amberset Dr
Knoxville, Tn 37922
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft

[[Page 30053]]

competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Regards,
    Stephen L. Starliper



MTC-00033288

From: D.V. KLIER
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
D.V. KLIER
5901 W MARGINAL WAY SW
SEATTLE, WA 98106
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    D.V. KLIER



MTC-00033289

From: Lionel C. Abrahams
To: Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I do not agree with the proposed settlement. It appears that 
Microsoft has again done a run around the government, and getting 
away with this crime.
    Microsoft is still continuing their high pressure tactics to 
eliminate the competition and by helping other third parties to do 
their biddings for them.
    No later than last month, my broadband ISP changed from 
@home.net to @charter.net. They supplied me with a CD 
and a Web site to ``automate'' this process. For a PC 
user, this would have AUTOMATICALLY installed Microsoft IE, 
disregarding the fact that I use Netscape. It also would have me 
automatically register on Microsoft .NET service, to change my email 
address!
    I had to call Charter support, and forcefully request the non 
MicroSoft procedure. Only when I asked them for the requirements 
that I have to have Windows installed, only then did they give me 
the non MS URL to change my email, never needing to install, nor use 
the MS supplied software to switch.
    This is just MY example on how MicroSoft is still ``dealing 
under the table'' to continue their unlawful monopolistic 
tactics.
    Lionel C. Abrahams
    ...Mailed to you by PMMail/2 2.20.2370
    running eCS--PRO 1.01 (OS/2 Warp 4.51) :-)



MTC-00033290

From: Charles W. Arnold
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:43am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles W. Arnold
537 Borris Rd.
Furlong, PA 18925
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after

[[Page 30054]]

purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that 
were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which 
will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles W. Arnold



MTC-00033291

From: Michael Fletcher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:46am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Michael Fletcher
5395 Underwood Ave.
Baton Rouge, La 70805
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    PLEASE END THIS LAWSUIT! I DO NOT WANT MY MONEY SPENT IN THIS 
WAY AS I DO NOT FEEL THAT THE PLANTIFFS IN THIS SUIT HAVE BEEN 
HARMED. NETSCAPE MADE A WONDERFUL DEAL WITH AOL AND HAS MOVED ON. AT 
THE TIME OF THE ``INJUSTICE'' I HAD BOTH NETSCAPE AND 
MICROSOFT'S BROWSERS ON MY COMPUTER AND USED BOTH.
    IF YOU CONTINUE THIS SUIT, IT WILL ONLY SEND A MESSAGE TO NEW 
BUSINESS THAT IF THEY CAN'T MAKE IT IN THE MARKET, THEY WILL BE ABLE 
TO SUE IN COURT AND LET THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR 
THEM. THIS WILL ONLY STIFLE GROWING BUSINESSES AND SEND THE MESSAGE 
THAT IF YOU GET TOO LARGE, BIG BROTHER IS GOING TO SUE YOU, OR IF 
YOU GET REALLY TOO SUCESSFUL - IT WILL PUT YOU OUT OF WORK. THIS IS 
NOT THE MESSAGE WE NEED TO BE SENDING TO YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WISH TO 
START THEIR OWN COMPANY.
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael D. Fletcher



MTC-00033292

From: A. Slatin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A. Slatin
8301 E. Sheridan st.
Scottsdale, Az 85257
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. amd Mrs. A. Slatin



MTC-00033293

From: Virginia Legare
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Virginia Legare
255 Coconut Palm Rd.
Vero Beach, Fl 32963

[[Page 30055]]

January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
    601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Virginia Legare



MTC-00033294

From: Marjorie McGee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:12am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie McGee
14515 Granite Vly Dr #C625
Sun City West, AZ 85375
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on 
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against 
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at thecompany's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior andcompliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John and Marge McGee



MTC-00033295

From: William D. Jemison
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William D. Jemison
1460 Eastridge
Memphis, TN 38120
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellowtaxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and nowbe able to focus their time and resources on 
matters of far greaternational significance: the war against 
terrorism, includinghomeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge ColleenKollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The partiesworked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit oftaking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when allappeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of thiscase: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers andtaxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continueto innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developersand Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will haveunprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thuswill be able to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computermanufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or elementof an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoftcannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products 
developed by Microsoft

[[Page 30056]]

competitors. Plus,in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for the 
next five years, at thecompany's expense, and monitor Microsoft's 
behavior andcompliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors'products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolioshave taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. Thissettlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit therevised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    W.D. Jemison Jr.



MTC-00033296

From: Ed Lowry
To: USDoJ Antitrust Div
Date: 1/24/02 9:15am
Subject: Micrsoft Settlement
From: Edward S. Lowry
7 Alder Way
Bedford Mass 01730
781 276-4098
[email protected]
http://www.ultranet.com/eslowry
January 24, 2002
To: Hon. Colleen Kollar-Kotely
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington DC 20001
cc: U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Subject: Microsoft settlement, blunt their complexity weapon
    Dear Justice Kollar-Kotely: Over 30 years of anticompetitive 
behavior in the softwareindustry have been far more destructive than 
the proceedings inthe Microsoft case have suggested. Microsoft's 
abuse of itscompetitors is a minor part of larger destructive 
effects.
    The designers of antitrust legislation probably 
nevercontemplated an industry where market competition could be 
soeasily thwarted. The large inherent complexity of software 
makeschanging vendors difficult. This creates a business incentive 
forall vendors to make software more complex than it needs to 
be.Competition is further weakened by incentives for vendors 
andothers to claim they are trying to simplify while 
actuallypursuing contrary policies, thus discouraging real efforts 
atlarge scale simplification. It is further weakened by theexistence 
of so many people with prestige or profit incentives tocomplicate 
other peoples'' lives. I have decades of experienceworking on 
simplification and observing deliberate obstruction oflarge scale 
simplification by prestigious organizations. MYEXPERIENCE HAS BEEN 
CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW THAT HIDING THETRUTH ABOUT THE POTENTIAL 
FOR SIMPLIFICATION HAS BEEN A HIGHPRIORITY AMONG SOFTWARE LEADERS 
FOR DECADES.
    This pattern makes correcting for past and 
prospectiveanticompetitive behavior in software both difficult 
andnecessary. Your authority to protect the public interest is 
nowprecious to society at large. I recommend that you take no 
actionwhich limits the exercise of your authority until remedies 
whichyou set in motion have been demonstrated to be effective. I 
alsorecommend that your attention focus largely on reducing 
theeffectiveness of needless complexity as a tool to 
thwartcompetition.
    The consumer need for simplicity in computing has always 
beenhuge and obvious. Millions of people every day bear 
enormousburdens of needless complexity which are a direct result 
ofdisregard for the public interest by the software industry.
    THERE ARE ONLY A FEW DOZEN PEOPLE ANYWHERE WHO HAVE 
USEDPROGRAMMING LANGUAGE SEMANTICS FOR NON-TRIVIAL APPLICATIONS 
ASADVANCED IN ALLOWING FOR SIMPLICITY OF EXPRESSION AS WHAT 
IBMDESIGNED OVER 25 YEARS AGO. The gross failure of 
marketplacecompetition to provide incentives to make 
reasonablesimplifications is a matter of demonstrable fact.In part 
to provide some confirmation of the 25 year delay, Iasked U.S. 
Senator John Kerry to make an inquiry related to theseissues. The 
main question is whether anyone working in theFederal Government has 
experience using software technology whichallows for simplicity as 
advanced as what was designed over 25years ago. He initiated that 
inquiry in December 2000 and hasn'treported finding anyone yet. The 
lack of such experience amongtechnical advisors can be demonstrated 
fairly easily using theattached programming examples. Failure to 
take first steps insimplifying software has blocked a series of 
potentialsimplifications.
    Results of decades of deliberate anticompetitive resistance 
tolarge scale simplification in software include:--deficient 
math and science education due to failure to express precise 
information precisely.
--a flood of needless and burdensome complexity going into 
schools as educational technology.
--users entangled in proprietary complexity for decades.
--massive degradation of the quality of technical information: 
accessibility, usability, clarity, interoperability, ductility.
--a probable contributing factor to crash of KA801 in Guam, 
August 1997, 226 dead.
--a possible contributing factor to 20% of US casualties in the 
Gulf War.
--failure of the FAA to upgrade its air traffic safety systems.
--massive government waste such as the IRS modernization 
effort.
--mismatch between employment skills needed and those 
available.
--major ``innovations'' are ``square 
wheel'' unreasonable.
--political leaders dependent on technical advisors who are 
over 25 years behind the leading edge on simplicity issues.
    burdensome technological instability. illusions of progress and 
illusions of effort to make progress.
    large learning loads for skills of ephemeral value. Several 
hundred feet of bookshelf space (e.g. at Barnes and Noble) to tell 
people how to tell their computers what they want.
--massive vulnerability to computer viruses.

    For decades there has been almost nothing standing between 
thepublic and this kind of abuse. At present there is almost 
nothingto prevent still more decades of the same. Remedies 
appropriateto the scale of past damage and the prospect of future 
damage areneeded. That requires assessing the scale of the damage 
and Idoubt there has been any realistic effort to do so. A great 
dealdepends on your response. It doubt that Microsoft will agree 
toanything potent enough to correct for this overall pattern.
    The most serious damage of anti-competitive behavior in 
softwarehas probably been to obstruct improvement in technical 
education.On a massive scale, educators teach how to arrange pieces 
ofinformation. However, by failing to understand simplification,they 
have almost no idea what is a reasonable structure forpieces of 
information. One result is a failure to express preciseinformation 
in precise ways, and that imposes a large needlessburden on 
students. Imagine cities where the architects andbuilders had never 
seen a reasonably shaped brick. Both technicaleducation and software 
technology are mired in a comparable stateof reasonableness today.
    For over 30 years I have been working to clarify how to 
makesoftware and other technical description simple, mainly at 
IBMand Digital Equipment Corporation. I have observed a high levelof 
confidence among software leaders that there would be 
noaccountability for opposing large scale simplification. I 
canelaborate on all of the above from long experience.
    The anticompetitive behavior has distorted antitrust 
proceedingsby keeping participants in a state of technical 
ignorance. Byaccepting prevailing stunted understanding of 
simplicity insoftware from people who are demonstrably 25 years 
behind theleading edge, the Department of Justice has probably 
tended tosee existing ongoing dependency relationships between 
vendors andusers of software technology as largely the result of 
complexitywhich is inherent in the technology. That is unrealistic 
becauseso much of the complexity has been caused by deliberate 
actionsby vendors. It would also appear that the potential 
forcompetitiveness is more limited than it actually is. Such 
viewswould have probably biased Department of Justice toward non-
intervention and obscured the potential for judicial remedies.
    The proposed settlement agreement itself looks like a 
hollowgesture resulting partly from poor technical understanding 
atDoJ. It focuses on assuring equitable access to the market 
for``middleware''. Middleware as defined amounts to 
software forexecuting

[[Page 30057]]

special purpose languages. The need for such softwarewould be 
greatly altered and diminished if serious efforts tosimplify were 
made. Accepting such an agreement would put thecourt in a position 
of depending on continued large scaleanticompetitive behavior in the 
industry in order to place minorrestraints on Microsoft.
    The best available analysis of the fine structure of information 
supports the view that almost all computerized information is 
represented in ways that are unreasonable in much the same way that 
square wheels are unreasonable. No other field of technology has 
been afflicted by such perversity. No other community of 
technologists have been so oblivious about their most basic 
structures. The consequences have disastrously damaged information 
quality and disabled human minds. It has been largely unnoticed 
because people have no other experience. While that analysis [see 
``Toward Perfect Information Microstructures'' on my web 
site] may be viewed as unverified, not even the beginnings of a 
technically sound alternative analysis exists. It includes easily 
understood reasons why simplification allows 
``middleware'' or special purpose languages to be 
displaced by much more versatile general purpose language. Patents 
now owned by Compaq Corporation have helped to prevent corrective 
measures.
    I hope that you will assess the effectiveness and 
destructiveness of the anticompetitive behavior. You could ask the 
parties to the case: who among them has working familiarity with 
software for simplicity as advanced as IBM developed over 25 years 
ago (using the test below). Noting the above paper arguing that the 
basic structures of software technology are now ``square 
wheel'' unreasonable, you could ask whether any can identify a 
sound presentation of an alternative technical view. In addition the 
intent should be assessed. To what extent has obliviousness to 
needless complexity been used as a concealed weapon against 
competitors? My story supports such intent.
    I hope that you will be bold in developing remedies and prepared 
for some contention. Major social upheavals have sometimes 
accompanied simplifications in law and religion. Publicly asking 
embarrassing questions like the above could help a 10t. Such 
questions have been passionately evaded for many years. Even a U.S. 
Senator has had difficulty eliciting answers.
    Microsoft could be required to support large scale 
simplification in a variety of ways. They could be required to 
respond to or financially support challenges to understand 
simplification like the $25K offer on my web site. Another approach 
would be to require that they incorporate a conceptually self-
contained interface into Windows which provides broad capability 
with simplicity close to the best available understanding of how to 
do so. It could be aimed specifically at educational use, at least 
initially. Rolling back the unwelcome intrusion into education of 
mysteriousness and technological instability could be major 
achievable goals of such an effort. It could be partly defined in 
terms of avoiding damage to quality of user information. I can 
provide additional supporting documents and other assistance. Let me 
know if I can help .
    Yours respectfully
    Ed Lowry

SHANNON Examples Compared with SEQUEL 2

    To assist in validating a 25 year delay in improving simplicity 
of expression, and raising quality standards in future efforts, the 
following list of example expressions are provided. They indicate 
what degree of simplicity and clarity is achievable in a multi-
purpose language and roughly what was known to be achievable in 1974 
as recorded in: ``PROSE Specification'' by E. S. Lowry, 
IBM Poughkeepsie Laboratory Technical Report TR 00.2902. It was 
dated Nov 1977 but it was distributed within IBM in Dec 1974.
    These examples are translated from the first 10 examples given 
for Sequel 2 (now SQL) in the IBM Journal of R&D, Nov 1976. For 
the first 10 expressions Sequel 2 (a specialized data base language) 
uses 130 tokens. Shannon (a multi-purpose language) uses 99 tokens. 
The original Sequel 2 code is omitted as irrelevant. The significant 
comparisons would be with C++, Java, Ada, Cobol, etc.
Expression 1.
    English: Names of employees in Dept. 50
Shannon: name of employee of dept(50)
     Expression 2.
    Eng: All the different department numbers in the Employee table.
    Shan: dept--no of employee condense
Expression 3.
    Eng: Names of employees in Depts. 25, 47 and 53.
    Shan: name of employee of every dept where 25 or 47 or 53
Expression 4.
    Eng: Names of employees who work for departments in Evanston.
    Shan: name of employee of dept of Evanston
Expression 5.
    Eng: List the employee number, name and salary of employees in 
Dept. 50, in order of employee number.
    Shan: for employee of dept(50) minfirst empno show(empno, name, 
salary)
Expression 6.
    Eng: Average salary of clerks.
    Shan: average (salary of clerk)
Expression 7.
    Eng: Number of different jobs held by employees in Dept.50
    Shan: count job of employee of dept(50) condense
Expression 8.
    Eng: List all the departments and the average salary of each.
    Shan: for dept show(it, average(salary of its employee))
Expression 9.
    Eng: Those departments in which the average employee salary is 
less than 10,000.
    Shan: dept where average(salary of its employee) < 10000
Expression 10.
    Eng: The departments that employ more than ten clerks.
    Shan: dept where count(its clerk > 10



MTC-00033297

From: John McGee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John McGee
14515 W Granite Valley Dr. #C 625
Sun City West, AZ 85375
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: such as the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.

[[Page 30058]]

    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John McGee



MTC-00033298

From: C. A., Jr. Rosenberger
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
C. A., Jr. Rosenberger
149 East Side Dr. # 323
Concord, NH 03301
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    C. A. Rosenberger, Jr



MTC-00033299

From: Blaine R Conk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Blaine R Conk
2645 Redlands Drive
Costa Mesa, Ca 92627
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Blaine R Conk



MTC-00033300

From: Mark W. Alexander
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 9:56am
Subject: Re: [LeapList]Microsoft Settlement
    If you can figure out the proper way to send this to the judge 
in the --civil-- suit, that's the place for it to go. It's 
great, but it does not address the DOJ settlement. mwa
    On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Phil Barnett wrote:
    I feel that the currently proposed settlement is inadequate and 
an embarassment to justice and law abiding taxpayers everywhere.
    Ordering Microsoft to buy their way into another monopoly by 
having them donate proprietary operating systems to needy schools is 
not punishment. It is simply telling them that it's ok to monopolize 
yet another venue.
    Will this billion dollars worth of ``charity'' 
displace real business in the commercial operating system world? 
Will sales that would have gone to Microsoft's competitors be lost 
because school districts around the U.S. will be waiting in line for 
their free handout? Will this billion dollar fine actually 
strengthen Microsoft? I believe it will if it is carried out as 
currently proposed.
    If you want to actually punish Microsoft for their illegal 
activities, you should not do it by giving them a new market to take 
over. Instead, you should punish them by strengthening the 
competition that they have illegally gained monopolistic power over 
and plundered.
    I propose that any new Microsoft settlement to needy scools 
include:

[[Page 30059]]

    50% of the settlement into computer hardware only.
    20% of the settlement into network infrastructure.
    All computers purchased with this settlement money be installed 
with non-proprietary Linux Open Source operating systems and 
software.
    30% of the settlement will be used for education of the support 
personnel and teachers using these new open source operating 
systems.
    Linux is an excellent choice in Open Source operating systems. 
It is stable, capable, powerful, consistant and as easy to 
administer as any operating system that training is available for. 
There are many good mainstream Linux distributions available at low 
or no cost. Training and certification are available and should be 
encouraged in the support and educational infrastructure.
    Open Source operating systems have the benefit of being 
upgradable at little or no cost for the foreseeable future. If the 
schools to be helped are those with limited budgets, low upgrade 
costs will be very important over the life of the hardware. Also, 
Linux is more efficient with hardware and does not require the 
rigorous hardware upgrade schedule that Microsoft operating system 
upgrades require. This means the hardware purchased with this 
settlement money will be viable years longer with Linux than it 
would be with Microsoft's proprietary operating systems.
    If the current settlement is carried out, in a few years the 
schools with limited budgets will have obsolete operating system 
software needing to be replaced with billions of dollars of public 
money.
    And, to whom will this upgrade money go? Microsoft.
    That is not punishment. That is opportunity.
    If you want to punish Microsoft and at the same time remove the 
proprietary handcuffs that Microsoft has put on every Windows user, 
teach our children how to use Linux.
    LeapList mailing list
    [email protected]
    http://www.matrixlist.com/mailman/listinfo/leaplist
    Mark W. Alexander
    [email protected]
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033301

From: William Huth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:57am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Huth
211 Cooks Landing Road
peach bottom, PA 17563
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William J. Huth



MTC-00033302

From: James Friedrich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Friedrich
2301 E. Clifford Ave.
las vegas, Nv 89104-2140
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to

[[Page 30060]]

submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District 
Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James A. Friedrich



MTC-00033303

From: Renata B. Hesse
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:09am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
2226 Pecan Drive
Yuba City, CA 95991-8432
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mr. George J. Jameson



MTC-00033304

From: Walter Sainio
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Sainio
6419 Monero Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Walter C. and Nan G. Sainio



MTC-00033305

From: mel fineman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
mel fineman
20215 ne 10th place
miami, fl 33179
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will

[[Page 30061]]

have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own. Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    mel fineman



MTC-00033306

From: John Weir
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Weir
2730 Lakeridge Shores West
Reno, NV 89509
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Weir



MTC-00033307

From: Gary Deitschman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:53am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Deitschman
1981 Susan Ave
Neenah, WI 54956
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Deitschman



MTC-00033308

From: John Appel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 11:28am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Appel
186 23rd Ave SW
Largo, FL 33778

[[Page 30062]]

January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John E. Appel



MTC-00033309

From: Rodney Int-Hout
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 11:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Rodney Int-Hout
106 Dahlia Circle
Fairfield Bay, AR 72088-3708
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance the war against terrorism, including homeland security. 
As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed 
for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for 
the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked 
extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of 
taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now when 
all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Rodney Int-Hout



MTC-00033311

From: Jerry Pausch
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 11:49am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Pausch
P.O. Box 413
Leesburg, oh 45135
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a

[[Page 30063]]

Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry B. Pausch



MTC-00033312

From: Mark Meszar
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 11:53am
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I am concerned about the settlement issue that would strip the 
Microsoft Internet Explorer browser from the Microsoft Windows 
operating system. I spend a great deal of time online and have used 
Internet Explorer and Netscape Navigator. The Navigator browser is 
slower, more intrusive, less stable, and an inferior product in my 
opinion. If Microsoft Windows did not come with Internet Explorer I 
would have to spend hours downloading it over a slow dial-up 
connection. I format my computer's hard drive fequently for testing 
and to have to download the program over and over after each install 
of Microsoft Windows would decrease my productivity. I urge you to 
at the very LEAST allow Microsoft to include the option to install 
the Internet Explorer browser off the Microsoft Windows CD
    Sincerely,
    Mark Meszar
    4616 Woodhurst Dr.
    Youngstown, OH 44515-3731



MTC-00033313

From: Richard Grant
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Grant
22933 Galva Ave.
Torrance, Ca 90505
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Grant



MTC-00033314

From: janice gabbert
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
janice gabbert
115 w monument
dayton, oh 45402-3099
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    The following is a long ``form letter'' supplied by 
CAGW, of which I am a member, and I have read it carefully AND AGREE 
WITH ALL OF WHAT IS SAID BELOW:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.

[[Page 30064]]

    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    janice j. gabbert



MTC-00033315

From: Elsie T. Childers
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elsie T. Childers
8781 Rose Creek Rd
Nebo, Ky 42441-9766
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Elsie T. Childers



MTC-00033316

From: Robert Himmelberg
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Himmelberg
911 East Park Drive
Glasgow, Mo 65254
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    R.L. Himmelberg



MTC-00033317

From: Evald Carlson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Evald Carlson
119 Oxbow Drive
Oxbow, ND 58047-5001
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the

[[Page 30065]]

DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. 
Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own. Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Evald J. Carlson



MTC-00033318

From: Dean Willson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dean Willson
7748 E. Tanque Verde Ln.
Tucson , AZ 85715
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dean W. Willson



MTC-00033319

From: Margaret A. Kennedy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 12:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margaret A. Kennedy
202 Willow Run Rd.
Sneads Ferry, NC 28460
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Margaret A. Kennedy



MTC-00033320

From: Robert Nelson

[[Page 30066]]

To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 2:34pm
Subject: Please reconsider your stance against Microsoft!
American Antitrust Institute
2919 Ellicott Street, NW Suite 1000
Washington DC 20008-1022
Attention: Albert A. (``Bert'') Foer, President
    Mr. Foer,
    Your late actions in the Microsoft anti-trust case are contrary 
to the interests of business owners, stockholders of all technical 
stocks, and the American, as well as much of the international 
public, as well as the economy of the United States, and is a threat 
to technological innovation.
    Your qualifications for membership are, from your site, as 
follow (bold case is ours) : ``I have visited the AAI website 
(www.antitrustinstitute.org) and reviewed its contents. I am in 
general agreement with the philosophy represented by the AAI and 
wish to be affiliated as a Friend. I will abide by the conditions of 
membership as set forth on the website'' indicate the 
appearance of your having little to no interest in hearing from 
those who oppose your actions and views.
    Most people in the data processing field oppose the view and 
stance you have taken at this late date. We believe, and have reason 
to believe, that the entire matter was begun my competitors who 
charged more, delivered less. and under whose guidance the personal 
computer and software would remain prohibitively expensive for the 
average consumer. Microsoft has made software affordable, 
dependable, and easily available. No company has absorbed as much 
software piracy as Microsoft without prosecuting users, either.
    The legal attacks and moves by certain competitors has resulted 
in an either/or decision on the part of many Information Technology 
Directors and Chief Information Officers. We know how to write 
software, and (in my case) have been doing so since 1968. The 
actions of Microsoft's competitors has already backfired as we have 
continued to adopt as much IBM and Microsoft product as is possible, 
and no longer use certain competing products from the companies who 
brought this case.
    Nearly all of the people with our philosophy are simply quietly 
doing this with little to no fanfare. We do not post to hobby 
bulletin boards. We do not spend a great deal of time in Microsoft's 
defense beyond converting previous database products to either 
Microsoft SQL Server or IBM's DB2.
    We do not now, nor have we ever, worked for Microsoft or any of 
its subsidiaries, and we own no more than 100 shares of their stock 
among us. In other words, we have no personal stake in this other 
than our desire to have affordable, cutting-edge, and stable 
software for our business.
    An area of investigation that needs more scrutiny is in the area 
of targeting viruses to the Microsoft products. This occurs far too 
often to be simple cases of hobbyists causing mischief, and is one 
of the areas where we are gathering a much information as we can.
    Finally, we are more than a little concerned about another 
statement on your site--``A Counterweight to Conservative 
Influence''--which indicates to us that your site is 
politically-driven. If this is the case, we would like to inform you 
that, according to a gay investment site, Microsoft is the third 
most gal-friendly public company in the United States, after Disney 
and American Express.
    We ask that you reconsider your stance so that we may have this 
yoke off of our economy, and so that Microsoft may continue to 
innovate as if they were headquartered in a free country.
    Warmest Regards,
    Bob Nelson
    Adventek, Inc. and for the majority of CIOs and data center 
directors, whose company names will follow on their letterhead by 
hardcopy.
    cc: Microsoft, Inc.
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033321

From: Arthur Ives
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 4:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Arthur Ives
16 Lighthouse Way Dr.
Salem, SC 29676
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Arthur H. Ives



MTC-00033322

From: Daniel F. Betts
To: DOJ
Date: 1/24/02 4:33pm
Subject: Lawsuites et al
    dear DOJ
    As a consumer, citizen etc, can't these law suites stop. It is 
dragging down the economy and it is purely being done for purposes 
to hurt others, I am just sick of all that has gone on. The events 
of the last year have nearly wiped me out financially and 
emotionally. I am at my end!!
    Daniel Betts



MTC-00033323

From: Charles E. Boonstra
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charles E. Boonstra
2218 Lake Shore Drive
St. Joseph, MI 49085-1841
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost all taxpayers, including you, more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval seems to me to be clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism,

[[Page 30067]]

including homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. I have no interest at all in 
further enriching the legal beagles involved in this case.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles E. Boonstra



MTC-00033324

From: Stanley R. Krier
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stanley R. Krier
175 Berlin Ave., Unit #64
Southington, CT 06489
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stanley R. Krier



MTC-00033325

From: Steven Shepherd
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/24/02 6:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Steven Shepherd
    14209--93rd Ave NE
    Bothell, WA 98011-5147
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033326

From: Samuel Frankenfield
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 6:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Samuel Frankenfield
7375 Hightower
Fort Worth, TX 76112-5812
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the

[[Page 30068]]

attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Samuel Lewis Frankenfield III



MTC-00033327

From: Nolan Swift
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 7:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nolan Swift
PO Box 09041/5006 S May St
Chicago, IL 60609
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Nolan G. Swift



MTC-00033328

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:11pm
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,
    Grete Koller
    202 Spruce Court
    Yorkville, IL 60560-9582



MTC-00033329

From: Frank Soldwedel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 8:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frank Soldwedel
1778 Rte. 9N
Lake George, NY 12845-5900
January 24, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able

[[Page 30069]]

to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Frank E. Soldwedel



MTC-00033332

From: Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it might concern,
    I'm an Information Technologies Engineer, with more than 6 years 
of experience in IT, now working as a Test Engineer in a Quality 
Assurance team. I think that the proposed settlement in the 
Microsoft Antitrust Case is a bad idea. Please reconsider your 
position.
    I have co-signed and I endorse the open letter that Mr. Dan 
Kegel has posted on the Internet here: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
letter.html
    Mr. Kegel points it nicely:
    According to the Court of Appeals 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 current proposed settlement, does not seek to unfetter 
nothing. It is uncapable of terminating illegal monopoly practices. 
It does not deny Microsoft Corp. the fruits of its statutory 
violation. And it does not ensure that Microsoft Corp. will end its 
current illegal practices. For example, some ways that could enforce 
Microsoft Corp. to end its illegal monopolistic practices would be:
--Make open and public the documentation that specifies 
Microsoft Corp.'s file formats, like MS-Word, MS-Excel... Make open 
and public the specifications of actual and future file formats 
(when available). This will serve to open the market to competing 
products. The consumer will have a selection.
--Disclose MS-Windows API that will make possible for competing 
products to use programs designed for MS-Windows. This way, 
``MS-Windows compatible'' Operating Systems could be 
presented as a real choice to the consummer.
--Mandate Microsoft Corp. to do not discriminate (in their 
licenses or wherever) against competing technologies or products. 
For example, nowadays, their ``licenses'' forbid to use 
MS-Windows components in conjunction with Microsoft Corp's 
technology competitors. Yes, with their licenses, you cannot use MS-
Windows Media without MS-Windows, when it is technically possible to 
do so using the emulator ``WINE'' under Linux (quoting 
their license: ``you shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE 
COMPONENT in conjunction with any Publicly Available Software. 
``Publicly Available Software'' means each of (i) any 
software that contains, or is derived in any manner (in whole or in 
part) from, any software that is distributed as free software, open 
source software (e.g. Linux)'').
    Well, there's more and in more depth at Mr. Kegel's website.
    Yours sincerely,
    Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
    Chapel Hill, NC 24514
    QA Test Engineer,
    IT Professional, Member of IEEE--Computer Society
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033333

From: dick allan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Come on you guys, this one from M$ doesn't cut it either. Since 
when does the criminal get to call the remedy?



MTC-00033334

From: Jacqueline Hoernlein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:05pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jacqueline Hoernlein
4230 Shattuck Rd.
Saginaw, Mi 48603
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Jacqueline Hoernlein



MTC-00033335

From: David Olegar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft
    Restore competition to the software industry. Break up 
Microsoft.



MTC-00033336

From: Guy Sewell

[[Page 30070]]

To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs,
    I would like to express my dismay at the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I am particularly concerned over the lack of recognition 
by the DOJ as to the importance of not-for-profit organizations to 
the future of IT, and to the discrimination against not-for-profit 
organizations in the proposed settlement.
    Also, I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why the MS 
breakup remedy was not chosen. The company was found guilty of being 
an illegal monopoly. The company has a obscene profit margin with no 
significant competition in either the OS market or the office suite 
market, how can this not be detrimental to consumers or competitors? 
It has a greater % of total market than AT&T or Standard Oil 
did. Diversity is a desirable trait in ecosystems, in societies, and 
in commerce. Break up Microsoft and make the the units compete in a 
free and level market place.
    Guy W. Sewell, Ph.D.
    President
    Sewell Environmental Associates, LLC



MTC-00033337

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:11pm
Subject: my personal view on the ms vs doj case
    Dear Sir / Madam
    On the face of it, it would appear that my view on this matter 
is irrelevant; I am after all a British citizen living in New 
Zealand, half-a-world away from your great nation.
    However your decision in the matter of the Microsoft will affect 
my life deeply. I am a senior IT professional, working with 
Microsoft products daily. In short my very living will be affected 
by your decision. The world, and I await with baited breath what 
impact this will have on our lives.
    It is under such circumstances that I offer my humble opinion: 
My summarisation is this, that it would appear to be a decision of 
the issue of ``freedom'', how much ``freedom'' 
should a corporation be allowed vs. the freedom of the public to 
enjoy goods and services at a competitive price. In fact it would 
appear that the entire issue is summed in the above fashion. Most 
people today believe that ``I can do whatever I like, pursuing 
what ever goals I determine to be to my best interest, SO LONG as I 
respect the rights of others and do not impinge on their right to do 
the same.'' It is that above view, which I find utterly 
abhorrent. I propose that the belief that your great forefathers 
held such a view is a lie, and a dangerous lie designed to steal 
your freedom from right underneath you.
    If this issue (and all the similar arguments like it) are 
decided based on the merits of who has ``which freedoms to do 
what'', then the end result will be incorrect and self-serving, 
no matter how noble your aims.
    If entities such as governments, businesses, organisations and 
ultimately people, really believe that they have a 
``right'' to follow their own desires, without hurting 
others, they will, given enough time, destroy everything around 
themselves.
    Like a horrible Midas curse, it is not possible to gain your own 
goals without affecting others.
    The pursuit of self, at all costs is disgusting. The dangerous 
lie that it is possible to peruse self, without impinging on others 
is a falsehood. No man is an island, all decisions involve costs. 
Any decision based on the ``faintly'' held notion that it 
is permissible to pursue your own goals as ``long as you don't 
hurt others'' will produce a result that is a real evil in 
itself.
    I urge you to consider your forefather's real aims and goals in 
promoting liberty, not one of ``SELF'' but rather 
``OTHERS FIRST''.
    If you are proud of your heritage you will put others first, and 
demand of both the plaintiff and the defendant that they show how 
they are putting ``OTHERS FIRST''.
    The result will be a judgement based on the activities of both 
parties, designed to show whether self-interest or others-interest 
was the goal. It is obvious then that by upholding the freedoms of 
both parties, both will suffer equally. If both parties are forced 
to place the other party first, the result will be a correct 
settlement, designed to uphold the other's rights. If the 
``people'' are willing to allow Microsoft the right to 
``practice business'', then Microsoft must allow the 
``people'' the right to make their own livings. (I imagine 
the issue of forcing OEM vendors to pre-install windows will be 
shown for the foul business practice it is, self-serving and 
abhorrent.)
    Self-first always results in loss of freedom, never the 
promotion of freedom. It is your own forefathers whom taught their 
children to follow the ways of the man that first promoted the idea 
of ``Others First'', en-masse to the public. He was Jesus. 
Parents often paraphrase his teachings like this ``Treat others 
as you would have them treat you.'' He actually said, 
``Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind and 
all your soul. And love others as yourself.''
    May the Lord grant you the wisdom of Solomon as you consider 
such a weighty decision.
    Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak.
    Kind regards,
    Colin Saunders
    PO Box 98817
    South Auckland Mail Centre
    New Zealand
    [email protected]
    CC: [email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033338

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:13pm
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,
    D.Landis Murphy
    147 Suburban Terrace
    Stratford, NJ 08084-1413



MTC-00033339

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Renata Hesse:
    Please put a stop to the economically-draining witch-hunt 
against Microsoft. This has gone on long enough. Microsoft has 
already agreed to hide its Internet Explorer icon from the desktop; 
the fact is, this case against Microsoft is little more than 
``welfare'' for Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, 
with not a nickel going to those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the 
computer user.
    This is just another method for states to get free money, and a 
terrible precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer 
technology, but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic 
industry the world has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Murphy
    147 Suburban Terrace
    Stratford, NJ 08084-1413



MTC-00033340

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:16pm
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.

[[Page 30071]]

    Sincerely,
    Tricia Murphy
    147 Suburban Terrace
    Stratford, NJ 08084-1413



MTC-00033343

From: Andy Colligan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    The proponents of an anti-trust suit should have but one goal: 
The limitation or reduction of a trust. Cementing a trust's hold on 
a market is the antithesis of that goal.
    Please do not allow this settlement to become a travesty of 
justice and freedom. Please do not expand Microsoft's monopoly 
though this settlement.
    Speaking as someone who has watched the Internet grow, explode, 
and begin to mature, I would like to be able to see it become a 
place that allows freedom of expression and choice. Speaking as 
someone who has seen what computers are truly capable of, I implore 
you to allow the same freedoms onto the desktop. Customers should be 
allowed to choose how they want to interact with their computer. 
Currently, Microsoft does not allow that choice. If they have any 
say in the matter, they never will. However, you do have the power 
to change how Microsoft does business. I ask you to exercise that 
power. You may find this message to be silly, but the outcome of 
this case is anything but.
    Andy Colligan
    Email: [email protected]



MTC-00033344

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    please , in the public interest, proceed with the settlement 
that is so badly needed for the U.S. economy and in the interest of 
the public that is surely weary of continued competiveness. please , 
let us get back to sanity. thank you sincerely Chloe murdock 
chloeckm@ Aol.com



MTC-00033345

From: John Holstein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:19pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is an extremely bad idea. 
Microsoft has ridden rough-shod over the Computer and Computer 
Software Industry for too long.
    Out of the hundreds of complaints I could complain about 
concerning Microsoft, from their inability to provide a secure OS, 
out of the box, to their lack of effort in patching existing 
software for known bugs, the basis of my ``problem'' with 
the way they do things is their effort to set and/or change existing 
standards. These standard practices (RFC's ``Request for 
Comments'') that computer professionals go by when installing, 
administrating and developing new software are the basis for our 
everyday lives. Microsoft has the audacity to try and change these 
standards to suit their needs, at any given time, seemingly without 
regard to their customers ``computer well being''.
    Microsoft will continue to pull the wool over the eyes of people 
that don't know any better. We need to help protect the end users 
that don't have the ability to understand the ``behind the 
scenes'' actions that take place. I know, I understand, and I 
am not a fan of what Microsoft has done to the industry. Allowing it 
to continue will only hinder future developments.
    John Holstein,
    Cotse Helpdesk/Support



MTC-00033346

From: csm
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:20pm
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 someone who uses Microsoft products as part of his job, and 
who also uses products at home that compete with Microsoft products, 
I would like to offer the following comments and suggestions 
regarding the ``proposed final judgment in United States v. 
Microsoft''.
    In general the settlement described in the ``proposed final 
judgment'' tries to prevent the anti-competitive behaviors that 
Microsoft has used in the area of (what the settlement calls) 
``Middleware Products'' intended for user interaction with 
the Internet. I feel it focuses a little too narrowly on 
``Internet-centric'' programs such as browsers and E-mail 
agents. In fact, there are probably lost opportunities here for 
correcting anti-competitive behaviors in the areas of operating 
systems, software development tools and what is euphemistically 
called ``office productivity'' software (such as 
Microsoft's Office suite of programs).
    While these types of programs may seem more distant from the 
Internet than web browsers, etc., in point of fact almost all of 
them are also being upgraded to interoperate with Internet APIs and 
remote services. I wish this had been examined in more detail.
    However, taking the proposed settlement as written, there are 
several changes in wording that I believe would expand the scope of 
what is being required where it is overly narrow. In particular, 
under Section III.A.2 (hardware licensing):
    1. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System; should be amended 
to:
    2. shipping a Personal Computer with one or more bootable non-
Microsoft Operating System(s) either instead of or in addition to 
any Windows Operating System Product; to ensure that not only can 
Microsoft not retaliate against a computer hardware vendor who ships 
a Personal Computer that dual boots Windows and some non-Microsoft 
Operating System, but also that it cannot retaliate against a vendor 
who ships a separate line of Personal Computers without Windows at 
all, in addition to also shipping Personal Computers that do have 
Windows installed.
    This is particularly important to growth of the (Open Source) 
Linux Operating System as an option for businesses.
    In section III.D, in addition to ``the APIs and related 
Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate 
with a Windows Operating System Product'', the internal formats 
of disk files created by Microsoft products need to be cited as a 
necessary part of the ``related Documentation'', 
particularly for the Microsoft Office products.
    Microsoft Office is a pillar of the current desktop monopoly. It 
is reasonable to ask that ``flat'' files produced by Word, 
Excel and other components of the Microsoft Office suite have their 
internal layout and format fully documented so that non-Microsoft 
products can interoperate with them with full knowledge of any 
planned changes from one version of Microsoft Office to the next. 
This is important because these files are routinely exchanged via E-
mail and other methods of information exchange over the Internet 
(for instance, many company Personnel departments now require 
resumes and job applications to be E-mailed in Microsoft Word 
format). The exceptions to this would be the database file formats 
of Microsoft Access (one part of the Microsoft Office suite) and 
Microsoft SQL Server (a separate product), which should rightfully 
remain proprietary knowledge.
    Section III.J.1 needs to be tightened to provide outside 
verification that any denial of disclosure because it ``would 
compromise the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software 
licensing, digital rights management, encryption or authentication 
systems, including without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or 
enforcement criteria'' is justified by the facts of the matter. 
Also III.J.2 appears to provide a loophole for allowing Microsoft to 
refuse information to Open Source developers, since it has already 
disparaged the ``authenticity and viability of'' the Open 
Source model of doing business.
    This loophole must be closed, since Open Source software is one 
of the few surviving competitors that Microsoft products face 
currently.
    Definition VI.K.1 should include Microsoft Office among the list 
of ``Microsoft Middleware Products'', again because it is 
so routinely used in document exchange across the Internet.
    Thank you,
    Paul Connelly
    P.O. Box 290
    Oakham, MA 01068-0290
    (US Citizen)
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033347

From: Donald Rossell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 9:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Rossell
1331 Ridgeview Ave Dayton, oh 45409
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:

[[Page 30072]]

    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Rossell



MTC-00033348

From: dnp607(a)pacbell.net
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing under the Tunney Act concerning the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement (United States v. Microsoft Corp., Civil No. 
98-1232).
    I believe the settlement is unfair, as it will not serve to end 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct, and does not adequately penalize 
Microsoft for it's unlawful conduct. I have co-signed a petition 
which details my position in greater detail, and am writing this to 
officially note my opinion as allowed by the Tunney Act.
    Thank you very much,
    Dan Peknik



MTC-00033349

From: Carlos Santellanes
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:24pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    The proposed settlement is INSULTING to the word justice. 
Nothing is going to change with such a settlement, REAL punishment 
must be done this time or else the WHOLE computer industry will 
suffer.
    If only we'd stop trying to be happy we could have a pretty good 
time. 
    Edith Warton
    NOTICE--This message contains information intended only for 
the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential 
and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy 
or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this 
message in error please disregard.



MTC-00033350

From: Bill Vlahos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Monopoly
    I believe that Microsoft has clearly and unlawfully abused its 
monopoly for many years and am dismayed that the 
``remedies'' discussed so far are neither appropriate nor 
will be effective in either punishing or changing Microsoft's 
behavior.
    Assuming that Microsoft is guilty, which has been proven and re-
affirmed in court, then not only should their behavior change but 
they should be punished. There are numerous products and companies 
which no longer exist because Microsoft eliminated them.
    Let me suggest a solution that would not only meet the goals of 
the anti-trust case, be relatively easily achieved, but actually 
would effect a change.
    1. Make the file formats for Word, Excel, and Powerpoint open so 
that other companies can make competitive products which would 
transparently interoperate with Microsoft's products.
    2. Prohibit the Government (U.S. and States) from purchasing any 
Microsoft products for a period of time based on how long Microsoft 
abused their monopoly. This would punish Microsoft for past abuses 
while at the same time provide a waiting market for competing 
products.
    These remedies would certainly hurt Microsoft which is 
appropriate. They also would stimulate competition which would be 
good for consumers.
    Bill Vlahos
    [email protected]



MTC-00033351

From: chris wolske
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice Representative,
    I would like to respond to the Proposed Final Judgement to U.S. 
v. Microsoft. There are many aspects of this ruling which I find 
disturbing, including the following:
    In section III (Prohibited Conduct), section A.2. reads:
    [A.2] ``shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both 
a Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System; 
or''
    this interpretation ignores systems shipped without a Microsoft 
operating system, including computers that ship with only Linux or 
other Free (FSF) software with Windows compatability software 
included. An alternative may read as follows: ``
    shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a Windows 
Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating System, or 
(b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) includes a 
non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating System 
Product; or ...''
    Section VI (Definitions), section U, defines the following:
    ``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 focuses narrowly on the a subset of the operating systems 
offered by Microsoft and may be better represented by:
    ``Windows Operating System Product'' means any 
software or firmware code distributed commercially by Microsoft that 
is capable of executing any subset of the Win32 APIs, including 
without exclusion Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, 
Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, 
PocketPC 2002, and successors to the foregoing, including the 
products currently code named ``Longhorn'' and 
``Blackcomb'' and their successors, including upgrades, 
bug fixes, service packs, etc.
    Thank you for your time.
    Kind regards,
    Christopher Wolske



MTC-00033352

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:31pm

[[Page 30073]]

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,
    Christine Dowd
    1835 Portola Road
    wOODSIDE, CA 94062



MTC-00033353

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/24/02 9:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is inappropriate. Instead of being a 
punishment for illegal behavior, it appears to be a marketing plan 
designed by Microsoft. The costs to Microsoft of distributing their 
software to schools is very small compared to the retail 
``value'' of each package. Even using the full retail 
``value'' of the donated software the total cost is very 
small compared to the economic damage of Microsoft's monopolistic 
business practices.
    The proposed settlement does nothing to curb Microsoft's future 
monopoly, and in fact it actually promotes Microsoft's monopoly. By 
donating software to schools, Microsoft will be advertising in the 
schools. I believe Microsoft will be very happy with the proposed 
terms because they already spend billions of dollars on advertising. 
Apple has for years promoted their corporation by donating computers 
and software to schools. Now Microsoft will be required to donate 
computes and software to schools, even though such an action would 
probably be illegal without a court order. Such a donation could be 
an attempt to eliminate competition in the school market.
    When considering the severity of the penalty we should remember 
the severity of the crimes committed. Microsoft has for years bound 
large computer sellers to agreements which made it very difficult or 
costly to provide other operating system software on their 
computers. The terms of these agreements have required computer 
sellers to pay Microsoft for each computer sold, regardless of what 
operating system was installed on the system. In addition, Microsoft 
has prohibited installation of ``dual boot'' systems which 
would give people a choice of operating system. Imagine the 
absurdity of, for example, Del Monte receiving a payment for every 
can of corn sold, regardless of who actually made the can of corn.
    Perhaps most egregious is what Microsoft did to DR-DOS, an 
early competitor. Microsoft deliberately sabotaged DR-DOS by 
checking to see if DR-DOS was running and then creating false 
and misleading error messages. This gave the impression that 
DR-DOS was somehow incompatible. In fact DR-DOS was a 
superior product. Microsoft committed industrial sabotage. Finally 
Microsoft displayed an attitude of contempt for the judicial system 
during the trial. They introduced obviously doctored video tapes.
    When a crime results in ill gotten gains, it is appropriate to 
make the penalty large enough to remove the economic gain from the 
crime and then to further increase the penalty to deter future 
criminal behavior and to compensate society for the damage caused by 
the crime. In this case the damage has been very large. Microsoft 
has positioned itself as the owner of the software roads of the 
21'st century. No society would tolerate a single company owning all 
the roads in a country, and we should not tolerate having a single 
company control all of desktop software. Therefore it seems more 
appropriate to require Microsoft to donate all the Windows operating 
system software, including any future releases, to the public 
domain. Microsoft should also be required to compensate owners of 
patented and copyrighted software contained in Windows. Microsoft 
has a large amount of cash available and they should be able to 
provide compensation without any difficulties. Microsoft should also 
be prohibited from introducing any competitors to their Windows 
operating system and office software.
    Being wealthy is no excuse for committing crimes.
    Bruce Ramsay Software Engineer



MTC-00033354

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34pm
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,
    Jay Talsma
    534 Del Vista Dr.
    Bloomington, IL 61704-7654



MTC-00033355

From: Dawney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 24, 2002
    Dear U.S. Department of Justice:
    As a member of the public, I would like to add my comments on 
the Microsoft Settlement. If I understand correctly, under the 
Tunney Act I may submit comments regarding the Microsoft Settlement 
documentation. In order to accurately convey my opinion, I must 
first clarify that I respectfully but strongly disagree that 
Microsoft has had or does have a monopoly in the web browser 
industry. Our local news reported recently that our only local 
telephone utility provider is planning to share our personal 
information, including to whom we call and how long we stay on the 
phone line. Needless to say, the customers are not happy about this 
and are trying to get an opt-out option. But if we can't, and it is 
legal for the company to share our private information against our 
will, then we have no alternative but to continue using this utility 
company or to discontinue the use of our local phone service because 
there is no other option. THAT is a monopoly.
    I am easily able to obtain and use Netscape or Internet Explorer 
or AOL if I so choose. These three web browsers are easy to find and 
affordable if not free. Microsoft has developed a successful 
operating system (and application software) that has revolutionized 
(actually introduced) the public to the ever-increasing benefits of 
personal computer use. It was not long ago that the market of 
computer users was a minute group limited to the isolation and 
dullness of DOS. The creation of Windows has given wings to the 
minds of developers and end users. Microsoft has cultivated its 
Windows operating system with improvements such as Internet Explorer 
that are a benefit to the consumer.
    My perspective is that of great appreciation for successful 
development and true competition. Microsoft has no more channels of 
opportunity than any other company as far as marketing and 
distribution, unless they've created their own, which is productive 
innovation. If Microsoft is successful in distributing knowledge 
about its products and creating accessibility, it is commendable and 
a plus for consumers. I've read that it would be too expensive for 
Netscape to develop its own competing operating system. Too 
expensive for whom? Netscape? Consumers? If having a unique 
operating system is a desire of Netscape in the development of its 
product, then it ought to gather investors, developers, etc., to 
enable itself to achieve these developmental goals. Isn't that what 
most companies have to do? Microsoft successfully built and 
developed its concepts and products, relationships and consumer 
trust from ground up.
    They didn't try to jump on the coat tails of a larger company. 
Too expensive for consumers? If my limited knowledge of competition 
serves me correctly, then by Netscape building their own code, 
products

[[Page 30074]]

and relationships, it would actually facilitate true competition and 
even reduce prices (for consumers). With that said, out of respect 
for the authority of the Department of Justice to pass judgment on 
whether or not it feels the Sherman Act has been violated, I 
acknowledge the decisions that have led to the Microsoft Settlement. 
While I do not agree with much of the settlement language, it takes 
two sides to reach an agreement. With two sides agreeing to a set of 
terms and to be bound by the settlement, I agree that a swift close 
to this matter would be of benefit both financially and mentally to 
the public. I have been wanting to write this letter for over 
several weeks but have felt so strongly on some parts of this case, 
that I wanted to make sure and re-read the available public 
documents, then write with a clear mind and ``cool jets'' 
so to speak. My main concern when reading the complaints and 
settlement information is that of wanting reasonable justice and 
closure. I have been concerned foreseeing that Microsoft's 
competition would not honor the authority of the DOJ nor the binding 
settlement language; but rather, they would continue to pursue 
litigation after litigation. And as of January 23, 2002, 
unfortunately this foresight seems to be correct in reading that AOL 
is again suing Microsoft.
    I believe that it is in the best interest of the public and our 
economy to strictly and completely enforce all terms of the 
settlement, and then ensure that Microsoft's competition is not 
allowed to make a mockery of the system by misinterpreting their 
role (if any) in the agreement. This kind of abuse would be a waste 
of money and time (which would stifle would-be creative developments 
for consumers). I also believe it would be detrimental to consumer 
confidence.
    The decisions have been made. Let the DOJ and Microsoft carry 
out their parts of the agreement. Let the competing companies build 
their products to the best of their available resources (as with all 
businesses). Then let the consumers be free to choose their products 
and services.
    Thank you greatly for your time.
    Dawn Reagan
    1765 Tullis Dr.
    Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815
    (208) 665-2317
    [email protected]



MTC-00033356

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:36pm
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,
    Jean Payne
    501 Fairway Trail Springfield, TN 37172-4013



MTC-00033362

From: Bradley Greger
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
the proposed settlement is bad idea



MTC-00033363

From: Jonathan D. Nolen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I strongly disapprove of the proposed final judgment in the 
Microsoft Case. As written, it fails to achieve any meaningful 
benefit for the software-using public. It is insufficient to curb 
Microsoft's use of predatory and anti-competitive tactics, which 
have been working against the public good for two decades. Likewise, 
it fails to redress the damage that Microsoft has done to the 
software industry and the computer-using public at large during 
their reign as monopolists.
    Please see Dan Kegel's (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html) 
comments for further detail on the shortcomings of the proposed 
settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Jonathan D. Nolen
    Jonathan D. Nolen
    Santa Barbara, CA
    mail: [email protected]



MTC-00033364

From: Ben Lachman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement as it stands does nothing to change the way 
microsoft will act in the future. much greater action should be 
taken.
    Ben Lachman
    Athens, Ohio
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    (740)592-6430



MTC-00033365

From: David Lawler
To: Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 1/24/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Lawler
333 E Ontario #4412b
Chicago, IL 60611
January 25, 2002
Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice
    Dear Microsoft Settlement U.S. Department of Justice:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    David Lawler



MTC-00033366

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:42pm
Subject: AOL LAWSUIT AGAINST MICROSOFT
    Sir:
    I think in my opinion AOL should now spend time to enhance and 
innovate their system rather than spending time in the courtroom. It 
is just the right thing to do. Time to move on AOL you are hurting 
the economy of the United States of America.



MTC-00033368

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:45pm
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 Johnson
    9102 Hyde Park Drive
    Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2327

[[Page 30075]]



MTC-00033370

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    For over a year I used Netscape Navigator. Eventually, I decided 
to try other browsers--Internet Explorer and 
Opera--because I was becoming frustrated with Navigator's lack 
of features. I was much happier with Explorer's flexibility and 
features, so I removed Navigator. All three programs were free to 
the public, but one offered more and satisfied me more than the 
other. I also bought a Ford Bronco several years ago. I was not 
satisfied with the stereo that came ``bundled'' with it, 
so I shopped around and bought a better stereo to replace it. The 
stereo was much more costly and troublesome to replace than Internet 
Explorer is to replace. Cars come bundled with stereos and tires and 
I can buy different tires and stereos for my car, just as a computer 
can come with Windows, Mac OSX, Linux, etc., but I am still free to 
choose whatever web browser or other software I prefer with the 
operating system of my choice.
    Please don't take away our rights or responsibility to choose 
and decide for ourselves what products we will use. Politicians harm 
consumers when they give unfair advantage to producers who cannot 
compete with companies that create better products. Allowing 
politicians to interfere with the marketplace and consumer choice is 
an uncompetitive and unconstitutional practice.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene Fortain
    5707 Los Alamos Ct.
    Santa Rosa, CA 95409



MTC-00033371

From: Bob Boothby
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Is further litigation on the Microsoft antitrust case going to 
get us out of this recession? I don't think so! I was hopeful when 
Microsoft and the Department of Justice reached a settlement back in 
November, but now it looks to me like we are in for another round of 
fruitless litigation. We have nine state Attorney Generals playing 
politics and AOL is back in court with an old complaint that was 
proven to be unfounded in the current DOJ lawsuit.
    I, Robert, am a Software Engineer. I worked for RCA Computer 
Systems Division in the 1960s and Hewlett-Packard from the early 
1970s to the present. From personal experience I can tell you that 
the Netscape browser lost its dominant position because it was 
defect-ridden and its performance was miserable. The Netscape 
browser still has a near monopoly on UNIX workstations and AOL Time 
Warner & Sun Microsystems still deliver a defect-ridden browser 
with miserable performance to that market.
    Microsoft has agreed not to go after computer companies who ship 
software that competes with anything in its operating system. 
Microsoft has also agreed not to retaliate against software or 
hardware developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows or that run on software that competes with Windows.
    What else is expected of Microsoft? Let's move on. Let's put an 
end to the litigation!
    Sincerely,
    signed: Iku Boothby
    Iku Boothby
    signed: Robert Boothby
    Robert Boothby



MTC-00033374

From: John E Pillow
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I think the settlement is not good. It lets Microsoft continue 
to control the marketplace.
    Thanks
    John E Pillow



MTC-00033377

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:04pm
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,
    Carole Hill
    233 Jackson Circle
    Louisville, CO 80027-1630



MTC-00033378

From: Bill Rodgers
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I find the behaviour of AOL appauling. It seems that AOL are 
more intent to be seen as a successful court litigator than as a 
company that would provide quality software to the public. They 
can't compete with expertise and quality products so they seem to 
want to ``knock'' the industry standard down to their own 
level. This will do nothing for the advancement of technology and 
the benefits that can have to consumers. It is time AOL were given a 
clear message that they either start to get their software 
development act together and contribute to the development of users 
computing experience or they get out of the game.
    Bill Rodgers
    Newcastle, Australia



MTC-00033379

From: gani delos santos
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    proposed settlement is bad idea



MTC-00033380

From: gregTHOMY
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:08pm
Subject: MS BS proposal
    I totally DISAGREE w/ MS's proposed settlement for their illegal 
activity.
    Chop em up!
    Thank you.
    gregTHOMY
    PS: It is increasingly difficult to AVOID using this monopoly's 
products...this would be ok in communist china but not America!!!



MTC-00033381

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:09pm
Subject:
    A right to use It is difficult describe how I fell about the 
antitrust case against microsoft. I am unsure at this time how this 
email will be received. I am a 30 year old Information Technology 
and Telecommunications engineer working in South Australia, I have 
been involved with computers and computing since I was 15 years old, 
so I have 30 years experience dealing with computing issues and 
operating system.
    I am unsure if the American judicial system is allowed to 
consider opinions from out side of the USA. However, when you talk 
about the computer industry and partially Microsoft any anti-trust 
suit is not just important to Americans it has far reaching effects 
all around the world.
    Software defies conventional trade boundaries, a new piece of 
software can be all over the world in a matter of weeks and be used 
by billions of computer businesses and home users in this time. What 
Microsoft has accomplished in it's time as the major operating 
system is develop the computer platform to a stage where anyone in 
the world can use it and use it effectively.
    But it has done this at a cost. The first PC I acquired was an 
Amstrad 286 at the time windows was not even an OS and DOS was king. 
Thousands of companies produced word processing programs land other 
utilities and the consumer was able to talk with their wallets. If a 
piece of software was no good then they migrated to another and 
never used that software again.
    This is the way it was in the beginning. The free market at it's 
best. Mac had a market dominance, it's OS and windows type platform 
was the easiest for all users to use. A large number of users used 
the mac platform instead of the PC as the PC OS was difficult to 
use. Then along came windows. Windows was produced to compete 
against the Mac OS which made Mac's one of the

[[Page 30076]]

most sold computer systems there was. Windows copied a lot of the 
Mac features and low an behold a Graphical user interface was 
available for the IBM PC. Real competition began in the PC market.
    The combination of the IBM PC and the Microsoft windows product 
won out over the Mac. Not because it was the better of the two 
systems they were both pretty much the same it's just the IBM PC's 
were cheaper then Macs and thus market forces won the day. Microsoft 
became the main OS of today. This wasn't a problem as Windows used 
DOS as the basis for it's OS and all the DOS software companies 
could easily port their packages to the windows format. But 
microsoft wanted more, recognizing their clear advantage due to 
there financial, market and marketing dominance they started to 
develop the peripheral programs, borrowing ideas from these other 
companies and going with the market trend.
    The Microsoft OS today could no longer strictly be called an OS. 
The operating system of a computer controls the interface between 
the human and the computer components and allows programs to talk 
and control these components in a managed manner.
    Microsoft dose this and so it in a reasonable manner. But it a 
lot includes programs which load automatically without the user 
asking. And as things like word programs, net surfing programs, 
picture editing programs are freely available why go out and by the 
other superior programs as well the ones we have may not be the best 
but they will do. By allowing microsoft to continue to add programs 
to there OS that do not have anything to do with the OS you 
perpetuate the destruction of superior software and operations 
during our time. Microsoft is holding the world in a computing 
stasis, by not allowing the best program to be presented to the 
consumer, developments are lost and our pool of knowledge shrinks.
    At this time microsoft has dominance of the world computer 
market. They control 99% of the worlds computers. Their software has 
proven time and time again that it is not the best, but it is 
adequate and why by the better stuff if the stuff I have works. I 
have had several programs that I love to use of the years become 
useless because microsoft change small parts of it's code to make it 
more difficult for other programs to run under windows. Microsoft at 
the issuing of a new OS can decided that the world has to change to 
suit it's vision. In actual fact when you think about it Microsoft 
has more power then the US government and the US court systems.
    Microsoft can make changes that effect the world in radical and 
dramatic ways. They can broaden or shrink the differences between 
the haves and the have not. This gives them a massive amount of 
power and ultimate power corrupts.
    The microsoft solution is a difficult one and I do not envy you. 
The split up of microsoft will be a blow to the company no doubt. 
But, I believe they said that there development divisions (those 
that produce office and Internet Explorer) would not be able to work 
as efficiently as they do now when they are connected to the OS side 
of things. This is definitely true ! However, isn't this what all 
other companies have to put up with. Microsoft limited access to 
their software interfaces to external companies. Meaning that the 
internal software development teams have an unfair advantage when it 
comes to developing software as they can use the full set of 
microsoft OS tools, while other companies can only deal with half 
the OS tools or less.
    If you can do nothing else you should at least include in the 
settlement that MS must release the full Software and interface 
specs to the MS Windows OS to allow others to compete on a more 
level playing field.
    Yours
    Chris Evans



MTC-00033382

From: justin delos santos
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/24/02 10:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00033383

From: Doug Schafer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am strongly opposed to the proposed settlement. It does not 
take into account Microsoft's past avoidance of the intent of the 
consent decree. It should be assumed Microsoft will act in bad faith 
as they have in the past. If this assumption is made, the proposed 
settlement easily allows Microsoft to continue monopolistic 
practices that will cause long-term damage to this country.
    To allow free-market forces to reign, Microsoft cannot be 
allowed to turn what is currently a public resource (the internet) 
into its private tool. This would be akin to a company subtly 
modifying all the on and off ramps of the federal highway system so 
that only company-approved vehicles could use them. Competitors must 
be able to interoperate with, and replace components of, Microsoft 
operating systems. This requires that the government prevent Microft 
from blocking this access via legal or tecnical means. The proposed 
final jugdement falls far short of this.
    Sincerely,
    Doug Schafer  5720 Ridgebrook 
Drive
    Agoura Hills, CA 91301
    818.444.2356



MTC-00033384

From: Danny Delos Santos
To: with a subject of ``Microsoft Settlement''
Date: 1/24/02 10:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement is a bad idea.



MTC-00033385

From: William R. Hutchins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William R. Hutchins
5605 Brisbane Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-9689
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to support the revised proposed Final Judgment in 
the US. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my 
fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and final approval is 
clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance,such as the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continued litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,

[[Page 30077]]

    William R. Hutchins



MTC-00033386

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:15pm
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,
    Dale Weckbacher
    4116 N. 72nd Drive
    Phoenix, AZ 85033-3151



MTC-00033387

From: Cerrise W
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:18pm
January 25, 2002
    To whom it may concern at the Department of Justice, I am 
opposed to the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial. 
I am a victim (as are you) of shameless abuse by the Microsoft 
corporation. If I do something that is against the law, I will be 
punished. This deterrent is the foundation of our justice system. If 
I live in some parts of the country, and I break the law (any law) 
three times, I will go to prison. There can be no exceptions.
    I do not expect to have more liberty than anyone else in this 
country. I also do not support any judgement in which the judicial 
system awards one person or entity more liberty than any other 
person or entity. This is discrimination.
    With the Proposed Final Judgement in this case, you will be 
making the following statement true: ``I (a citizen of the 
United States of America) do not own or operate a powerful monopoly, 
therefore I would be punished for breaking the law, even though the 
owners and administrators of a powerful monopoly can knowingly and 
gratuitously disregard the law and not only escape punishment, but 
actually profit from their many and brutal crimes.'' Note: I 
feel that invading my privacy for the purposes of exploitation; 
actively denying me or anyone the opportunity to compete 
economically-- enforcing a monopoly; and interfering with my 
constitutional rights in any way, are brutal and unforgivable 
crimes, which should be severely punished.
    Please do not discriminate against me by approving the Proposed 
Final Judgement; which lacks any punishment whatsoever for 
undeniably heinous and illegal acts by the Microsoft corporation.
    I (and every other citizen of the U.S.) have been exploited and 
abused by the Microsoft corporation, therefore I ask that you do 
more than shake your finger at them. They are undeniably guilty of 
very serious crimes against the American people. They are 
responsible for what amounts to information terrorism. Please do not 
encourage them to do it again and ruthlessly, by not punishing them.
    If you approve the Proposed Final Judgement; you will be giving 
away my rights to a corporation, in the interest of money. I will be 
apalled, ashamed, and even afraid to live in a country where the law 
can be so blatantly ignored.
    Sincerely,
    Cerrise Weiblen
    Freelance XA
    1559 Taft Court
    Louisville, CO 80027



MTC-00033388

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:20pm
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,
    Jack Brady
    3400 Cortez St.
    West Covina, CA 91791



MTC-00033389

From: Deborah Alexander
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:21pm
Subject: comments on emasculating anti-trust suits
    When Microsoft Word shut down my entire computer in the spring 
of 2000, and corrupted--almost beyond retrievability--my 
Master's thesis--I rejoiced that the far-superior WordPerfect 
might NOT be put out of business by the Microsoft monopoly, if only 
the DOJ might prevail Now, the *new* DOJ is suggesting a 
``punishment'' of placing this software with huge numbers 
of K-12 kids?
    That is like giving (bad) drugs away for free. I note that 
*during* settlement negotiations, Microsoft shipped out a Windows XP 
product that will shut down users'' *entire* machines--and 
all other applications--if the Microsoft goes without 
activation beyond a set date
    I also note that *since* the DOJ ``settlement'', 
Microsoft has (1) had the audacity to refuse FBI requests to Email 
notice of security problems in its software *found* not by Microsoft 
but by an independent watchdog; and (2) now admits that it 
suppressed information on a legal brief by failing to disclose 
lobbying of Congress in connection with your anti-trust suit.
    Why are these wealthy monoipolists continually hiding 
information and thumbing their collective noses at our 
administration-- without any apparent consequences? As a law 
student at Rutgers, I am looking forward to seeing an ultimate anti-
trust victory by the states which bravely refused to be co-opted 
into DOJ's settlement.
    I hope you will make the right decisions for a *true* capitalist 
democracy and prove those pundits wrong who point to the proposed 
DOJ settlement as proof that Microsoft campaign money bought the 
same level of power in this administration as had Enron... This is 
your opportunity prove us wrong, and avoid making a desperately bad 
settlement even more embarrassing.
    Sinceley,
    Deborah Alexander
    75 Hillcrest Road
    Warren, NJ 07059



MTC-00033390

From: James Puckett
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madame,
    Please do NOT move forward with the proposed Microsoft antitrust 
settlement. In its current form, the settlement proposed by the 
Department of Justice will do little to break Microsoft's monopoly. 
By only restricting Microsoft's behavior toward other commercial 
entities, you restrict Microsoft's behavior toward a group of 
companies it has already conquered and will have little trouble 
continuing to dominate.
    Open Source and Free software are the only real competition that 
Microsoft has left in this world; and because that work is non 
profit, developers of said software will receive no protection in 
your proposed settlement. Given free reign to attack Open-Source and 
Free software, Microsoft will flex all the muscle it can to destroy 
products like Apache, Samba, Linux, and anything else that Steve 
Ballmer and Bill Gates feel threatens their company's monopoly.
    You MUST move to an alternate remedy. First, Microsoft should be 
split, just as judge Jackson recommended, so that the Office and 
Windows monopolies can no longer be used to strongarm users, 
vendors, and OEMs toward both products. Second, Microsoft most open 
the workings of their APIs and networking protocols so that they 
cannot constantly work to shut out others in such simple areas as 
file sharing and network domains.
    Please do no sell out the future of computing, the internet, and 
who knows what else to Microsoft. Microsoft's guilt and

[[Page 30078]]

arrogance are obvious in this case, and if a real punishment is not 
issued, the Microsoft monopoly will only get worse, and will be 
abused even more.
    America needs you. Stop Microsoft now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    James Puckett
    12010 Waterside View Drive
    Apartment 34
    Reston, VA 20194



MTC-00033391

From: john campisi
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Antitrust
    There is an opportunity at this juncture to demonstrate that the 
Laws of the Land are enforced and fairly applied regardless of 
monetary or political clout. There has been a determination of 
violation of the antitrust statutes by Microsoft. A remedy must be 
imposed that is significant and serves to correct the market 
imbalance caused by the violation. Due to the advanced stage of 
market domination achieved through monopolistic practices, it is 
imperative that remedies must be focused on opening and leveling the 
playing field. Such remedies must be continuing and monitored for 
effectiveness and should not be restricted to one time financial 
penalties (no matter how large).
    It is clear that a meaningful remedy will have similar aspects 
as affirmative action. Effectively, it is necessary for Microsoft to 
be put at a disadvantage to its competitors until sufficient balance 
in the market is achieved for open and fair competition to succeed. 
Aspects to consider include:
    1. Limitation of the practice of the bundling of software with 
hardware purchases to allow consumer choice without incurring cost 
penalties.
    2. Ensuring that the details of the structure of the Microsoft 
operating system and industry standard application file structure is 
made available to all application developers to equal extent.
    3. Requiring Microsoft to provide application programming 
interfaces to its operating system for use by application developers 
of all types.



MTC-00033392

From: Jon V. Reuter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the United State Department of Justice:
    I would like to comment (via the Tunney Act) on the proposed 
settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. I am strongly opposed to 
the proposed settlement as it does absolutely nothing to address 
Microsoft's violations of antitrust laws--it only prohibits 
them from abusing these laws in the future, and even that is 
questionable. If an organization engages in illegal activity, 
benefits from this activity and then receives as a 
``punishment'' instructions that they can no longer engage 
in illegal activity, they have still benefited without any 
consequences. This is not justice--not for the victims of their 
abuses and not for the public which the U.S. Department of Justice 
should be representing.
    Microsoft has been clearly found guilty of abusing their 
monopoly. Monopolies, and the lack of competition that they produce, 
stifle innovation and result in lower quality products. The public 
now suffers the consequences of this as they have no choice in 
desktop software, are forced to upgrade and are stuck with whatever 
products Microsoft produces (along with their inherent quality and 
security issues). At the same time, Microsoft has had no incentive 
to address quality and security issues because they have a lock on 
the market.
    For the benefit of the public, I encourage you to rework the 
proposed settlement for a more fitting punishment for Microsoft's 
violation of U.S. antitrust laws and for a more fair desktop 
software market.
    Technology works well when independent standards are created, 
clearly defined and strictly followed. Every vendor has an equal 
opportunity to follow and implement the standards with their best 
effort. When this happens, the public can decide for themselves 
which product they like best and this results in a healthy 
assortment of products and companies to choose from. This philosophy 
has worked well in many areas of technology, particularly in 
hardware, where we have seen an abundance of healthy competition and 
increasingly better and less expensive products. Unfortunately this 
has not worked well in the software industry, but there is no reason 
that it couldn't. While establishing software standards is arguably 
more complicated and more involved, many successful independent 
standards have been developed. The database Structured Query 
Language (SQL) is a good example. If I want to build a database, I 
have many database vendors to choose from that all follow the SQL 
standard. I can even change vendors at a later time and still have 
the interoperability I require.
    To this end I would like to recommend the following (at a 
minimum):
    1. Microsoft should be required to publicly disclose all APIs, 
protocols and file formats. These should be available to 
ANYONE--NOT just parties with a justified business case. The 
documentation of all Microsoft APIs, protocols and file formats 
should be carried out by an independent, overseeing party (not 
Microsoft), as to ensure quality and accurate documentation. This 
measure would create a more fair market place by opening up 
competition to implement interoperable products in desktop software.
    2. Microsoft should be penalized for any independent standards 
that they alter. Microsoft has often altered standards for their own 
benefit and for extending their monopoly. For any standard Microsoft 
alters or does not adhere to, they should be required to correct for 
full compliance.
    3. Microsoft should also be required to release their source 
code for any products that they no longer support. Consumers should 
not be forced to upgrade their software any time Microsoft releases 
new products, but that is typically what happens. Having source code 
available for any products that Microsoft no longer supports will 
give the consumer a more fair choice about the decision to upgrade.
    4. Finally, Microsoft should not be allowed to dictate what gets 
bundled with their operating systems. This is exactly what they use 
to extend their monopoly, making the market place unfair and putting 
other companies out of business. As part of their punishment for 
violating U.S. anti-trust laws, everything they decide to bundle 
with their operating system should be scrutinized and approved by an 
independent governing body.
    I would appreciate your consideration of my comments.
    Thank you,
    Jon Reuter
    Consulting Engineer
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033393

From: Dave Neu
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I dislike the proposed settlement, and find it alarming on a 
number of points which are, I am certain, well documented in Dan 
Kegel's open comments letter.
    Thanks for your time.
    Dave Neu
    It is tempting, when the only tool you have is a hammer, to 
treat everything as if it were a nail. 
    Abraham Maslow



MTC-00033394

From: Denny
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The proposed settlement is bad idea.



MTC-00033395

From: Robert Koster
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/24/02 10:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Koster
11341 Brunswick Way
Santa Ana, CA 92705-2311
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.

[[Page 30079]]

    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. Koster, Ph.D. (computer science)



MTC-00033396

From: Jonathan Lupa
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:40pm
Subject: Voicing opposition to the current MS settlement.
    As a professional win32 software developer, there are many 
aspects of the settlement that I find troubling not least of which 
is the fact that the government is entering into a concilliatory 
agreement with a proven monopolist who has committed crimes and 
flaunted previous consent agreements.
    To save both our time, I will mention just one of my many 
grievances which is that without a structural change in the 
management of API vs. Application layer within the windows operating 
system, any remedy found by the agreement will only be temporary as 
it leaves open the door to further abuse of their monopoly position 
to price and engineer competition out of the win32 product market.
    I apologise for not entering a technical breakdown of the 
reasoning I used to reach this conclusion, but in the short time you 
have to review these letters, I doubt you will find the time to 
check everyones logic. I wish you the best in your endevours on this 
project.
    Respectfully,
    Jonathan Lupa
    Senior Win32 Developer
    Creative Solutions Inc.
    [email protected]
    GPG public key available from http://lupavista.jamdata.net/
gpg.asc
    or a keyserver near you.



MTC-00033399

From: David Anfinrud
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel that this case is unjust. Innovation is being hurt by 
these litigations. It appears that people just want to take all of 
Microsoft's war chest that allows it to continue to innovate even 
more. What will happen if we have no Microsoft. Will innovation 
continue. Microsoft has been a leading edge in the last few years.
    I was a Netscape user I paid for my copy of Netscape in spite of 
the free Internet explorer. I supported the company I respected. 
Until they provided a poor product during several upgrades. Each 
time I loaded the latest and greatest it had even more problems than 
the previous product. When that took place the third time I stopped 
using it. A company has to earn my money. They need to innovate. I 
had so many crashes and problems with Netscape I said enough is 
enough. No matter how good they said they were if it doesn't work it 
is not worth having or paying for. It was the innovation and the 
improvements that made the difference not the cost. I want something 
that works not something that was hit and miss.
    I have used a large number of Word Processors in my time. I was 
a big fan of Word Perfect but again innovation started to disappear 
from the product. I also owned the complete Word Perfect Suite. I 
paid for a quality product. At that time Word Perfect was the 
innovator that Microsoft had to compete against. In the early years 
no one could touch Word Perfect Office. Now I can't compare the two. 
Microsoft has developed a better Office suite. Now Microsoft Office 
meets my needs. Word Perfect is still dear to my heart but again 
innovation is what has won out. I will stay with a company only so 
long. Today It is Microsoft Office. Tomorrow who knows but it had 
better be a better product than what Microsoft has developed. 
Innovation again wins out. It was the way the companies see about 
developing their products. Yes Microsoft was aggressive but is it 
not true in any business. You find where you are lacking and improve 
the weakness and innovate.
    Today Microsoft is the Leader. They are looking ahead. While the 
competition should be improving their own products they spend money 
and political favors to try to prevent the next series of 
innovations from taking place. Is it the interest of the public to 
prevent a better product from being developed because those who 
don't want to innovate feel they are being cheated? Are we to 
provide poor quality items instead of excellent ones? Where is the 
public interest in that? What is happening behind the scenes? I see 
congressman trying to destroy Microsoft in favor of companies in 
their own states.
    I believe it is in the best interest to get this court case over 
with. Enough is enough. Resources that could provide a better 
product for Microsoft Users is being hindered and given to lawyers. 
The only winners here are the lawyers, a few non innovating 
companies, and the states but not the public. Every one wants 
something. There are a number of companies out in the market who 
practice even worse monopoly powers.
    They just don't have the exposure. This case has hurt the Tech 
sector of the economy. It still provides a drag with no end in 
sight. In a middle of a recession and still the good of Microsoft 
and its present day accomplishments are demonized because of what 
happened years ago.
    Sincerely yours.
    David A. Anfinrud
    234 243rd Ave SE
    Sammamish, WA 98074



MTC-00033400

From: John C. Stilin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement: Now AOL Sues For Netscape?
    I seem to recall that the Netscape Navigator Browser could be 
downloaded free from the Netscape Web site and oh by the way they 
forced you to accepted it with a home page default set to Netscape. 
Did anybody ever bother to check how many people paid for the free 
browser per the Netscape agreement? How can Netscape claim harm when 
Microsoft priced their product Internet Explorer to equal that of 
Netscape? How do you undercut free? Just goes to prove if you can't 
compete in the high tech industry, forget personal accountability, 
blame somebody else and sue. It's the American way.
    Let's not waste more taxpayer dollars in this matter just 
because Netscape doesn't know how to run a business.
    John C. Stilin
    [email protected]
    17611 NE 110th Way Redmond WA 98052
    425.881.1632 tel
    425.881.6173 fax
    425.922.3435 cel



MTC-00033401

From: Jerry Higdon
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 10:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I hope that the Justice Department will stick by the settlement 
it has reached with Microsoft. I feel it's a fair and just 
settlement and I hope that you urge the rest of the states who 
haven't yet settled to do so. Microsoft has been put through the 
ringer for long enough and it's high time to end this whole mess and 
let them get back to business. The settlement is reasonable enough 
not to hurt them to the point where they are forced to go out of 
business but is harsh enough to

[[Page 30080]]

silence most of their critics. For example, Microsoft will have to 
share information about the internal workings of its Windows 
operating system, which will allow computer makers to more easily 
install non-Microsoft software on Windows-based machines. This is 
harsh, but it is still better than Microsoft being broken up into 
little pieces.
    The settlement will appease all interests in the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I support it, and hope to see if finalized soon. 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Higdon



MTC-00033402

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed 
settlement between the United States Department of Justice and 
Microsoft Corporation regarding the finding of antitrust activities 
of Microsoft.
    I am highly concerned that through the predatory actions of 
Microsoft, Microsoft products are the de facto standards for many 
areas of personal and business computing and office work. The 
barriers to competition raised by Microsoft through its intertwined 
operating system, network products, and Office Suite make it nearly 
impossible for any competitors to arise in these areas. I am 
personally quite disappointed in the quality of these Microsoft 
products, and would be quite willing to purchase alternatives if 
they existed.
    I believe that without remedy the situation with Microsoft 
dominance of whatever product lines they choose will become worse. I 
believe that the present remedy proposed by the DOJ will do nothing 
to improve this situation, or curb Microsoft's predatory practices. 
In the interest of brevity, I will discuss the one remedy that I 
find most important. In an office environment, I find that the use 
of alternatives to Microsoft products, (Macintosh, Linux, or Office 
alternatives) is limited by the practical limitations of 
transferring data (email, documents, etc) from a Microsoft platform 
to a competitive platform. That is, for me to function in a modern 
office environment, any documents I send to others must open 
flawlessly by Microsoft products; any documents sent to me by 
Microsoft product users must be opened flawlessly by me. Since 
Microsoft keeps its data standards proprietary, it is nearly 
impossible to develop a 100% compatible alternative.
    Through its practices, Microsoft now dictates the de facto 
standards for email, word processing, spreadsheets, and 
presentations. I would urge the DOJ to find a remedy that would 
force Microsoft to make their format an open standard, readily open 
to competitors to use. Microsoft would not be forced to turn over 
sensitive information to competitors on their products; rather, they 
would be compelled to enable functional competition within data 
formats that they have made as industry standards through their 
practices.
    I am sensitive to Microsoft's claims that their know how in 
application software should be preserved. I am much more interested 
in enabling competitors to build programs that can compete with 
Microsoft by being compatible with Microsoft file formats. Data must 
not be captive to one company and format, but be transferable across 
different formats and systems. The DOJ has it in its power to enable 
this competition into the future.
    In any case, the current proposed settlement is horrible, so I 
do urge its rejection.
    Sincerely,
    Paul Drzaic
    Morgan Hill, California



MTC-00033403

From: Codifex Maximus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
To whom it may concern and:
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001,
    I am concerned with the length of duration of the judgment as 
proposed in the Proposed Final Judgment against Microsoft. Microsoft 
has shown a contempt for consent decrees and judgments in the past 
and based on past experience will probably do so again.
    I am alarmed at the impunity in which Microsoft acts in the 
information and technology spheres. It would seem to me that 
Microsoft is attempting to usurp the constitutional powers of the 
United States Government--is not disregarding the rule of law 
such an action? Should Microsoft not abide by a decree or judgment 
until it is overturned or nullified rather that continuing business 
as usual while the wheels of justice turn? To contain such 
activities, I've constructed an example of an alternative duration 
of Judgment. Bear in mind that I am not a lawyer.

Duration of Final Judgment

    This Final Judgment shall remain in force until Microsoft has 
been judged, by the tripartite oversight committee and the court of 
jurisdiction, to have maintained compliance with this document 
(final judgment document) for an initial 5 years and for 2 
additional years for each adjudged infringement of the controls in 
this document. Each adjudged infringement of the controls in the 
Final Judgment document, by Microsoft or it's entities, shall also 
have a financial penalty assessed. Such financial penalty is to be 
determined by a schedule of penalties determined by the tripartite 
committee and the court of jurisdiction. The penalties shall in no 
way deprive lawful entities under the jurisdiction of the United 
States of America of their civil right to suit.
    I am a Citizen of the United States of America and I wish to 
remain in command of my rights and liberties as guaranteed under the 
Constitution and the Bill of Rights including all statutory and 
common law rights. I pray that the Department of Justice will 
protect these rights by ensuring we have a free and competitive 
market in information as well as other technologies.
    Sincerely,
    Bennie Gravitt
    [email protected]
    Phone: 817-946-2332



MTC-00033404

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:08pm
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,
    David & Lisa Short
    4340 State Route 193
    Cherry Valley Township
    Dorset, OH 44032



MTC-00033405

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:10pm
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,
    Denis Quinn
    1578 11th Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94122-3615



MTC-00033406

From: Brent Casavant
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 1 1:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: Friday, January 25, 2002
    Submitted to the United States Department of Justice, in 
accordance with the public comment period provided by the Tunney

[[Page 30081]]

Act, in regard to the case United States vs. Microsoft (Civil Action 
No. 98-1232 (CKK)).
    Introduction Comments upon the proposed Final Judgement in its 
whole If there is one striking feature of this proposed Final 
Judgement, it is the lack of any form of punishment or restitution 
imposed upon Microsoft such that it forfeits the gains due to its 
anticompetitive practices. The remedies therein provide only for 
behavioral modification and oversight, but fail in any manner to 
deny Microsoft the fruits it has enjoyed from its illegal behavior.
    While I do not propose a specific punishment, I believe it is in 
the interest of the United States, its citizens, and all commercial 
entitites to discourage anticompetitive practices. Unless this 
proposed Final Judgement is significantly strengthened the 
provisions will serve as little more than a ``slap on the 
wrist''. This sends a clear message to all monopolies that the 
law may be freely flouted and disregarded as long as legal 
proceedings can be sufficiently drawn out to firmly enthrone the 
monopoly in an unassailable market position. More importantly, this 
sends a clear message to Microsoft that it may do so again at any 
time it should so choose.
    There is also a specific behavioral and punitive remedy which is 
notably lacking from the proposed Final Judgement which should be 
considered for inclusion. Microsoft has achieved large portions of 
its market dominance through ``locking in'' end users to 
its proprietary application (i.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint) data file 
formats, and through making incompatible changes to such formats, 
forcing end users into purchase of new application software to 
conduct business with other parties.
    This could be remedied through either of two means:
    Require Microsoft to make available, in a timely manner, all 
information regarding application file formats necessary for third 
parties to develop software which is capable of interoperating with 
the Microsoft application software.
--Require Microsoft to implement, as the default and preferred 
option, file formats which are trivially reverse-engineered by third 
parties for the purpose of interoperability.

    In either case Microsoft should be required to assign licenses 
to any intellectual property needed to properly implement software 
which can interoperate with the Microsoft application software. 
There is another area of general weakness in the proposed Final 
Judgement. Underlying the entire judgement is a presupposition that 
only for-profit commercial entities will enter into licensing 
agreements (either explicitly or through the purchase of Microsoft 
products and services). However, there is a large and increasing 
number of not-for-profit organizations which develop software 
(typically so-called ``Open Source'' software) which is 
distributed free of charge. Such organizations cannot in and of 
themself wield the financial incentives necessary to cause Microsoft 
to provide them the documentation or intellectual property rights 
necessary to implement software which is interoperable with 
Microsoft products.
    While Microsoft certainly has a reasonable right to expect 
compensation for its efforts, research, development, and 
intellectual property, it is also clear that they will use their 
monopoly position to choke out any competition from these not-for-
profit organizations. The proposed Final Judgement should be amended 
to provide for the release of information necessary for 
interoperability to these not-for-profit organizations. This is only 
one of the many ways in which amends can be made for the 
anticompetitive practices of Microsoft, and to take some small bite 
out of the fruits of their illegal behavior.
    Comments upon specific provisions of the Proposed Final 
Judgement Section III.E The terms of this section are inadequate to 
address harms and disadvantages already imposed upon third parties 
with regard to Communications Protocols. Microsoft has demonstrated 
with regularity that it will modify existing protocols, both those 
of its own design (i.e. the SMB protocol) and of other widely 
accepted protocols (i.e. the Kerberos protocol), with tenuous 
technical justification. While one cannot adequately judge 
Microsoft's every intention in such matters, it is often clear that 
these decisions do little more than lock out competetitors from 
interoperating with Microsoft products.
    As such, the remedy in Section III.E should be amended to cover 
existing protocols for current Microsoft Windows Operating System 
Products. This section remedy also fails to address the terms under 
which these Communication Protocols must be made available to third 
parties. There is no provision that such disclosures must be made 
under reasonable or fair terms to the third party. This inadequacy 
should be addressed so as to prevent Microsoft from circumventing 
the spirit of this order by an action as simple as making the price 
of such information practically unobtainable for all but the largest 
of ISVs.

Sections III.H.1 and III.H.2

    These provisions are inadequate to the extent that they do not 
stipulate that Microsoft must reasonably ensure the correct 
operation of the specific Windows Operating System Product after 
these actions are taken. This section should also restrict Microsoft 
from displaying alarming messages or languages which would serve to 
dissuade end users from utilizing Non-Microsoft Middleware Products.
    Microsoft has demonstrated its willingness to deliberately 
compromise the stability of their own software products in order to 
discourage the use of third party software. This was demonstrated 
most clearly in the early i990's when they implemented checks for 
the DR-DOS operating environment in their Windows Operating System 
Products. In this case an alarming message was displayed to end 
users which served to discourage use of the DR-DOS product, 
and the Windows Operating System Product was (anecdotally) 
deliberately designed to interoperate poorly with the DR-DOS 
product.

Section III.H.3

    There is little technical justification for the arbitrary limit 
of 14 days, after which Microsoft Operating System Products may 
automatically prompt the end user to confirm alteration of an OEM's 
configuration. While it is certainly justifiable to allow the user 
to cause the Operating System Product to revert to a Microsoft-
specified configuration, it is not reasonable to automatically ask 
the user to confirm or prohibit this reconfiguration.
    As such, this provision should be amended as to prevent 
Microsoft from implementing a system which prompts the user to 
restore Microsoft-specified configurations, unless the end user has 
initiated a deliberate action to cause this to occur. That is to 
say, the end user should need to initiate the action which causes a 
Microsoft specified configuration to be restored.

Section III.H.2 (second set of numbered items)

    This section allows a Windows Operating System Product to invoke 
a Microsoft Middleware Product in a case where the Non-Microsoft 
Middleware Product fails to implement certain technical 
requirements.
    This section should be amended to include language which 
prohibits the Windows Operating System Product from taking this 
action due to additional technical requirements imposed after 
release of the Non-Microsoft Middleware Product. That is, Microsoft 
must be prevented from requiring ISVs to update previously compliant 
(by the terms of this provision) products. This limitation, however, 
should not apply in the case of a major revision of the Windows 
Operating System Product.

Section V.B

    Microsoft has demonstrated a remarkable ability to delay and 
hinder legal proceeding against it. As such this provision should be 
amended to provide for an indefinite limited term extensions of the 
Final Judgement while any legal proceedings against Microsoft 
according to this provision are underway. Such an amendment should 
also provide that the Final Judgement will expire no earlier than 
one year after the date of termination of such proceedings, in order 
to further ensure compliance.
    Background and contact information I am interested in this 
matter as a long-time technology enthusiast and worker. My formal 
education is in computer and electrical engineering, and my work 
experience and personal interests have given me a deep understanding 
of the technical merits and considerations involved in software 
development, particularly in the area of operating systems. I am 
currently in the employ of a major computer systems manufacturer and 
vendor, a competitor in some fields with Microsoft, with my 
engineering work focusing on operating system software development.
    Brent Casavant
    3627 26th Avenue South
    Minneapolis, MN 55406
    612-724-0293
    [email protected]
    Brent Casavant
    [email protected]
    http://www.angeltread.org/bcasavan/



MTC-00033407

From: David Stoddard
To: Microsoft ATR

[[Page 30082]]

Date: 1/24/02 11:21pm
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
    As a graphic designer and a college teacher I deal with web page 
production on a regular basis. It is my experience that Microsoft's 
web browser Internet Explorer has default settings which are 
designed to force designers to depend on Microsoft products for web 
page development.
    By setting the default size of html text to a large size 
Microsoft insures that text will appear too large and therefore may 
cause some designs which depend on sliced images in tables to have 
gaps or otherwise be distorted. To compensate for this designers may 
have to reduce the size of type to such a small size that it becomes 
difficult to read on other browsers. This effectively makes it 
difficult to design for any browser but Explorer and makes using non 
Microsoft development tools require extra steps. Since the other 
development tools are often more intuitive to use than the Microsoft 
tools, not going through the extra steps requires designers to use 
less effective products.
    Undermining the standard in order to control the market seems to 
be Microsoft's main method for success. The strategy seems to be 
irritation over innovation, This is such a bad practice. Internet 
Explorer is a great product. So, I can't tell if it is greed or 
paranoia that motivates Microsoft to attempt to control all aspects 
of the web where software is concerned.
    Practices such as this should be regulated or punished. 
Unfortunately, no one is in a position to punish Microsoft in the 
market place. It would be good if government would do its job. If 
corporations could be trusted to do the right thing we would not 
need government. I think we need to see something better than a slap 
on the wrist or rewarding Microsoft by giving them a sure method of 
getting their products into schools without competition. How does 
this change things for the better?
    David Stoddard
    a concerned citizen



MTC-00033408

From: James M. Corey
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Hello. I'm an engineer currently working in the computer field. 
I received my Master's degree several years ago, and am now raising 
a family in Oregon.
    Know that I have been following the adventures of Microsoft for 
over 15 years now, and for the past 9 years I have been acutely 
aware of disturbing behavior evident in Microsoft's business 
practices. So I started to pay more attention to them, and what I 
saw I did not like. For the past 5 years now, I have avoided using 
their products, which is not an easy thing. I hardly need to go into 
detail about the damage they have done to technologically valuable 
initiatives such as the Java portability initiative, the world-wide-
web connectivity initiative, and now the public-interest software 
initiative (by which I am referring to the recent trend toward 
volunteer software projects by and for computer users, under the 
open source licensing agreement that Microsoft has begun to lobby 
against).
    The trouble they have caused for hundreds of specific 
competitors, large and small, pales in comparison to the damage and 
stunted growth they have caused to the industry in general, and 
thus, to the populace. I think we can agree that for all its 
shortcomings, computer technology has brought many benefits to the 
modern world. I take seriously the threat posed by Microsoft to our 
national information infrastructure, and also the harm they have 
done to the progress of the computer industry in general. I take 
offense at their attempts to lay claim to the modest progress that 
has been made, in many cases despite their own efforts.
    You might think it odd to hear these comments from an employee 
of Intel, a company seen as ``co-conspirator'' of 
Microsoft, at least in the eyes of the PC consumer. Intel is a 
company that seeks to be selected by consumers as a matter of 
choice, and indeed the consumers currently have several choices in 
this regard. Intel has expressed interest in the availability of 
similar choices in PC operating systems, such as with their interest 
in NeXTStep and their interest (and investment) in RedHat. However, 
these software ventures can not succeed in the current Microsoft-
controlled climate. So, Intel is stuck with Microsoft at the helm. 
In fact, there is now a strong atmosphere of fear within the 
``troops'' at Intel regarding internal departure from 
Microsoft products, as though Microsoft has the resources and 
inclination to chastise us.
    I can only hope that such is not the case. However, apparently 
Microsoft has expressed disapproval on several occasions regarding 
Intel projects that don't fit in with Microsoft's plans, resulting 
in lost opportunities for Intel. I ask you, if such large companies 
as Intel, IBM, and HP are frightened by Microsoft, where does that 
leave the consumer? Unfortunately, the public assumes our complicity 
is voluntary, but the truth is, it has not been entirely voluntary, 
nor has it been very conducive to progress. Thus our reputation 
suffers indirectly, by association.
    But I seem to be beating a dead horse. By my understanding, the 
crimes of, and harm caused by, Microsoft have been established. The 
issue is apparently what response to provide.
    I read about the dismissal of Judge Jackson with some distaste, 
but not nearly as much as when I heard the new proposed penalty of 
giving Microsoft software to primary schools. As the PENALTY? This 
seemed like a joke in very poor taste. The idea could only have come 
from Microsoft. It is hard for me to understand how they could be so 
lucky in escaping justice. It seemed almost as if they were being 
rewarded rather than punished. Something is very wrong with the way 
these events have been developing.
    So I had my doubts when I went to review the proposed final 
judgment at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, but I am 
glad to see it seems to contain some restrictions. Unfortunately, it 
doesn't seem restrictive enough to be effective. Microsoft has 
continually acted in flagrant violation of the law; they obviously 
think it is their right to act as they have acted. If they are not 
dissuaded more effectively, two things will result. First of all, I 
fear others will conclude that no one including the United States 
government can stand up to Microsoft and their lawyers, which will 
lead others to fear Microsoft even more than they already do. 
Secondly, it will continue a dangerous precedent of tolerance, of 
which other large organizations may take note.
    I notice that the protections afforded by the judgment are 
heavily slanted toward middle-ware, which seems like an unnecessary 
distinction. Microsoft has described web browsers as an intermediate 
platform and API for software applications to run on, thus falling 
broadly under the category of middle-ware, but this is heavily 
colored by their fear of how quickly a combination of Java and a web 
browser could erode customers'' dependence on their own 
products. Yet, the main purpose of a web browser is simply to 
provide a multimedia, hypertext interface to information on the web. 
A viewer with one-way interaction, not an operating system. Nor any 
kind of middle-ware, unless you consider a document viewer to be 
middle-ware, as it is with a Microsoft Word virus. There has been, 
and continues to be, a need for safe web browsers which limit the 
damage that can be caused to the user's computer simply by viewing a 
document on the web. In typical fashion, Microsoft ignores this 
simple need of the consumer in favor of their own selfish need to 
usurp control of the web viewer (and eventually web server) industry 
and prevent it from threatening their customer lock-in. Consider, 
though, that the result is the same as for many other important 
types of software in which they have taken an interest. Movie 
software, for instance, is their current target. Soon, they will 
take over that market and control it as they have so many others.
    If for some reason they should find it convenient to portray it 
as middle-ware, then their new operating systems would suddenly have 
an increased emphasis on 3D, animated interaction, thus making the 
multimedia layer integral to the operating system, and the computer 
software universe will warp to their will. But I digress. The 
middle-ware distinction is arbitrary.
    Even so, if the protection must be limited to middle-ware, the 
restrictions are so specific regarding which product and which 
scenario, that they will soon be outdated and ineffective. Here are 
some specific points I came across:
    *. III in general, is much too kind in its careful elaboration 
of exactly which scenarios Microsoft isn't allowed to retaliate in. 
It should instead have simply barred Microsoft from retaliating 
against business partners for any business choices they make, by 
mandating a fixed price, and prohibiting the practice of selectively 
distributing copies of their operating system as though the supply 
were limited. There was no mention of this latter practice, as far 
as I know.
    *. III.H.1 is clearly addressed to one symptom of the squeeze-
out behavior. I fear that after so much worrying over one particular 
tactic used by Microsoft, that they will simply emphasize other 
tactics or invent new ones. The basic behavior of misusing their 
advantage must be addressed, as well as these particular methods 
they have come to rely on. The exceptions to III.H would appear

[[Page 30083]]

necessary only from the viewpoint that wishes to preserve the 
advantage of Microsoft middle-ware over non-Microsoft middle-ware.
    The second exception, in particular, is so open-ended and 
convenient for Microsoft, that I suspect it will undo even the 
limited protection which III.H is meant to afford.
    *. IV.B.10 and parts of IV.C.3 suggest a very limited disclosure 
of Microsoft's dealings with the compliance enforcers (i.e. TC). 
Taken together, the picture is that of a company whose run-ins with 
the law are kept private. Of course this has the advantage of 
limiting impact to Microsoft's public image, but this is also a 
disadvantage. By keeping such things private, an aspiring developer, 
or even a consumer, is kept in the dark about dangerous situations 
that may be quite relevant to their own involvement with Microsoft. 
Also I see no reason why only officers and directors should be 
briefed regarding the TC. Shouldn't all Microsoft employees be aware 
of the arrangement?
    It sounds so secretive. If there is some other reason for such 
details, please forgive my ignorance.
    *. IV.B.8.b.i is illustrative of the surplus care which has been 
taken to avoid impacting Microsoft. In effect if the TC wishes to 
talk to an employee, it will likely be categorized as an interview, 
notice will have to be served to Microsoft, and the employee will 
almost certainly be accompanied by a Microsoft lawyer. Although I 
wouldn't dare to suggest that anyone at the company would ever lie, 
on the record or off, I have to wonder what kind of incriminating 
evidence one would expect to gain from such a conference. From a 
theoretical point of view, I have some trouble imagining how the 
employee's career could legally be defended from taking a wrong turn 
if information were disclosed.
    *. VI.N.ii--Limiting protection of non-MS middle-ware to 
those with one million copies distributed during the previous year 
seems to imply that only large, well-established players will be 
protected. New ventures must then fight an uphill battle. Unfair.
    *. V. The extension clause doesn't help much. Of course, 5 years 
is a long time, but not long enough. Now, if one has to get court 
consensus to extend by a year, I presume that the usual delay 
tactics could push the decision itself past one year anyway. I would 
have thought that if the TC had to lift one finger against 
Microsoft, that alone should be grounds for another 5 year 
extension, with no limit. I suppose the interest is in figuring out 
how Microsoft will circumvent the measures in the short term, which 
may well be the most pertinent question.
    These are examples of the things that worry me when I read the 
judgment. I haven't the expertise to analyze the document in great 
detail, and that is to be expected. So I leave you with my 
impressions as a citizen. The proposed final judgment seems to have 
a lot more language granting loopholes and exceptions to Microsoft, 
than it contains restraints upon them. Having read this document, I 
fear that it is not strong enough to stop Microsoft's criminal 
behavior. I am dissatisfied with the judgment, even to the point 
that I felt slightly ill when I first read it. People are joking 
that Microsoft has gotten off pretty easy, and it does indeed look 
that way. I think Microsoft has had too much input into the proposed 
final judgment.
    If you want my recommendation, focus on the fact that 
Microsoft's lock on the market, and its power over competitors, 
rests fundamentally on its control of standards. The only way I know 
of to wrest that control from them is to let an independent party, 
perhaps a government laboratory, to write the standards and make 
them publicly available for all developers and companies to work 
with. That would provide a positive and healthy result from this 
massive embroilment. This should be done regardless of whether 
Microsoft is to escape direct penalization.
    As a prologue, after writing the above, I checked on the web for 
other opinions on the settlement, and it appears that I naively 
missed many deeper problems. In order that my correspondence not be 
unduly influenced, I have not rewritten it, but the situation is 
worse than I realized. As worded, the judgment may even work in 
Microsoft's favor, rather than merely failing to curtail. Please, do 
not let this travesty continue unchecked.
    James M. Corey
    [email protected]
    Intel, Ronler Acres Campus (Oregon)



MTC-00033409

From: Clark Morgan
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello. I am an independent software engineer (i.e., contractor) 
who lives in Hillsboro, Oregon. I wish to comment on the proposed 
Microsoft Settlement.
    I believe that the potential effects of the proposed settlement 
can be easily judged by the responses from the monopolist 
(Microsoft) and its adversaries (the nation's computer software 
industry): Microsoft is delighted and the computer software industry 
thinks the settlement does nothing to rein in Microsoft's abuses.
    Conversely, the last time I recall that the United States 
successfully prosecuted a monopolist, the affected party (AT&T) 
bitterly complained about the proposed remedy. The fact that 
Microsoft thinks this settlement is wonderful should give the court 
pause, to ask a very simple question: Is the court being played by 
Microsoft?
    In my opinion, the answer is a definitive ``Yes.'' In 
my opinion, if the court does not take decisive action to punish 
this company for its anticompetitive practices, then Microsoft will 
never again fear retribution for its actions. I hope the court will 
recall the long list of companies that Microsoft has crushed, 
including: WordPerfect (now Corel), Lotus, Novell, Apple, Stac, and 
Netscape. If nothing is done to hobble this monopolist, then once 
its ``punishment'' phase is over, Microsoft will never, 
ever again fear government intervention and/or regulation. After 
all, if a company gets convicted as a monopolist and walks away with 
a ``delightful'' settlement, what should it worry about in 
the future?
    Recall that when AT&T was broken up, the long distance 
market was opened to competition, which lowered long distance rates 
to extremely inexpensive rates. For example, I currently pay $0.05/
minute for long distance calls placed in the evenings and all day on 
weekends. If AT&T still held the monopoly for long distance, I 
--know-- I would not have access to $0.05/minute calls.
    As things stand now, Microsoft is the AT&T of the software 
industry. Every new release of its Windows operating system is the 
same price: $90-$100 for an upgrade $225 for a complete release 
Every new release of its office suite is the same price: 
$200-225 for an upgrade $400 for a complete release Where is 
the competition? There is none, which is the consequence of buying 
from a monopolist. The court has a chance to step in here and 
squelch this monopoly. Please don't let Microsoft dictate the terms 
of this settlement.
    Respectfully,
    Clark O. Morgan
    346 NW Treglown Ct.
    Hillsboro, OR 97124
    ([email protected])



MTC-00033410

From: Ethan Larson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Microsoft is a proven monopoly. Its illegal practices are a 
detriment to innovation. Microsoft's continuance as a monopoly, 
which the current settlement has assured, will be a hindrance to the 
market, not an aid.
    Sincerely,
    Ethan Larson



MTC-00033411

From: Dim-skies
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:34pm
Subject: aol vs. microsoft
    Dears Sirs,
    I think the AOL lawsuit is just another attempt to bleed a 
successful business, when you can't compete. I feel that a monopoly 
is when the consumer has nowhere else to turn. If I don't like my 
cable, or phone company, where do I go? Granted, other OS's aren't 
as pervasive, but they are available. That is hardly the same as 
``not available''. AOL paid big money for a loser, and now 
they want help. What has happened to America? This is just another 
shameful example running to the Government for help for everything, 
including stupidity.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Wong
    Port Orchard, WA 98366



MTC-00033412

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:40pm
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

[[Page 30084]]

against Microsoft is little more than ``welfare'' for 
Netscape and other Microsoft competitors, with not a nickel going to 
those supposedly harmed by Microsoft: the computer user. This is 
just another method for states to get free money, and a terrible 
precedent for the future, not only in terms of computer technology, 
but all sorts of innovations in the most dynamic industry the world 
has ever seen.
    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Grace Stewart
    5312 Bethany Way
    Lakeland, FL 33810-1827



MTC-00033413

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Gentlemen:
    I have resided on this planet for a series of decades. I have 
managed to live through the era of governmental regulation of 
monopolies such as railroads, steel, oil, airlines, telephones, and 
utilities. And I have seen the results. Competition unfet-tered by 
regulation works well, as Adam Smith predicted. But when the legal 
system enters the economic arena, it is a sore losers contest where 
only the legal profession benefits.
    I have used and abused both browser systems, and like Beta-Max 
and V H S, one will survive....BUT LET IT BE THE CONSUMER, not the 
courts which determine this end. I have always had a distinct 
distaste for the mink in the duck pond which destroys purely for the 
sake of destruction. And that is the aim of AOL in this 
matter...Despicable at best.
    Sincerely,
    Craig G. Pause & Trinidad Brown

    Note: Our family does own shares in both corporations...I may 
dump AOL on ethical grounds alone.



MTC-00033414

From: J. Lucha
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I was in complete shock and outrage when I first read the 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    I've been a computer programmer for the last six years, and have 
been a computer hobbyist for more than twenty.
    I have used virtually every type of computer software and 
hardware during those years from Microsoft and its competitors. 
Unlike the general public, I have first hand experience with most of 
the products that Microsoft has destroyed over the years through 
anti-competitive practices. In many cases, the competitors product 
was superior. There is no doubt in my mind that Microsoft has held 
the computing industry back more than ten years. Our world will 
never know what could have been achieved had the computing world not 
been crippled.
    The settlement fails to provide the remedy needed for a healthy, 
productive and competitive technological industry. In fact, it may 
be argued by many that the settlement actually strengthens 
Microsoft's monopoly and allow them to bully those that compete with 
them.
    Here are just a few of the many points where the Proposed Final 
Judgment fails:
    1. First and foremost, the settlement does not address 
Microsoft's ill-gotten gains. Microsoft is allowed to keep billions 
of dollars acquired illegally. How many convicted thieves are 
allowed to keep their stolen goods?
    2. The three person technical panel created by the settlement 
has some glaring problems. The first problem is Microsoft gets to 
select one member of the panel, who in turn has a say as to who the 
third member is. Sounds like Microsoft basically controls the panel. 
The second problem is that the panel members are not allowed to 
disclose any information to the public. If Microsoft is in any 
violation, the public will not know.
    3. No punishment for the executives of Microsoft that knowingly 
and willingly led their company into law breaking actions. A strong 
message must be sent to businesses that unlawful and unethical 
behavior will not be tolerated. Without such a deterrent, business 
are encouraged to act in whatever means will lead to their greatest 
profits. The burden then lies upon the victims. I do not want my tax 
dollars constantly spent correcting wrongs that might not have 
occurred if the proper deterrents were in place.
    4. While the API's used to communicate with the operating system 
will be documented and released, it will only be done for companies 
and business that Microsoft deems have a viable business. The Free 
Software movement has been acknowledged by Microsoft to be its 
biggest competition, yet they have publicly stated that businesses 
with a basis in Free Software don't have a viable business model. 
So, their toughest competition is excluded from the API's to begin 
with.
    5. The duration of the restrictions is a mere 5 years, which is 
not a significant amount of time to reverse the detrimental damage 
caused by Microsoft. As a software developer myself, I can assure 
you it will take at least five years before a competitor can 
accumulate the necessary business infrastructure (funding, staff). 
It would probably take another five years before a useable product 
is developed. Also, if Microsoft is found to be in violation, there 
is no extension to the duration of the restrictions.
    6. The settlement is full of loopholes for Microsoft to take 
advantage of. The main ones being the definitions defined in the 
Proposed Final Judgment such as API. I also find it alarming that 
the definitions have already been altered from the ones used in the 
``Findings of Facts''. Microsoft has been found guilty in 
previous court hearings, and used the loopholes contained within 
those settlements to render them useless.
    What good will it have done to have spent so much taxpayer 
money, and have nothing to show for it. For examples of ways in 
which Microsoft may twist the meaning of the definitions to render 
them useless please read http://www.os2hq.com/archives/arch46.htm .
    7. The settlement does not address the file formats used by 
Microsoft's Office programs. With each new version of Microsoft's 
office suite programs, they change the format of the documents 
created. This creates a barrier to entry for competing office 
software. It is also a means to force current customers in a never 
ending upgrade cycle, where they purchase the upgrade to be able to 
read the files sent to them by others, even though they themselves 
do not need the added features of the newer version.
    A Final judgment that would be in the best interest of the 
consumer might include some of the following:
    1. Microsoft would have to give a sum of at least $5 billion in 
cash to the Free Software Foundation. One of the goals of the Free 
Software Foundation is to support the development of software that 
is a viable alternative to Microsoft's products. Microsoft has 
publicly acknowledge d that Open Source is their most viable 
competitor. True competition can be brought about by helping fund 
the independent developers found in the Open Source community.
    2. Microsoft would have to pay the legal expense of any business 
that brings a legal case against Microsoft during the duration of 
the restrictions. This would prevent Microsoft's typical defense 
against competitor lawsuits: stalling. There are numerous cases that 
have never been brought against Microsoft because the company or 
individual didn't have the financial resources for the long, drawn 
out case that Microsoft's legal army executes.
    3. All Microsoft executives and managers would have to enroll in 
a University business law and ethics class every year at the 
individuals expense for the duration of the settlement. They must 
attain a grade of of at least a ``B'' or they must retake 
the course the following semester/quarter.
    4. Any specification or API that must be known to offer a 
competing product must be well documented at least six months prior 
to Microsoft's release of the product. If the specification is 
changed, then the product released date must also be delayed.
    5. Any contract between Microsoft and the major OEM's (Gateway, 
Compaq, Dell), ISV's (AOL, CompuServe), etc., must be approved by an 
independent panel.
    6. If Microsoft is to bundle application software such as 
Internet Explorer with their operating system software, they must 
also include a competing product such as Netscape Communicator.
    7. The true price of Microsoft's applications and operating 
systems must be listed as a line item when purchasing computers. 
Currently the costs of Microsoft's products are bundled into the 
hardware costs, and the consumer is unaware of the true price paid 
for the Microsoft product. If the price is listed, a consumer that 
feels it is too much, will inquire about alternatives.
    If we set forth laws, and do nothing when those laws are broken, 
then there is no point to have our society. Microsoft has violated 
the law, but the Proposed Final Judgment does nothing but ask them 
not to violate them any more.
    James Lucha
    Programmer/Analyst
    Moreno Valley, CA
    E-Mail: [email protected]

[[Page 30085]]



MTC-00033415

From: Daniel Peters
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Daniel Peters
175 E. 96th St. Suite 15K
New York, NY 10128
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my NON-support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. After reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, the final approval is clearly NOT in the 
public interest. To me, Microsoft is similar to AT&T before it 
was split into separate Regional companies. Microsoft has too much 
monopoly power. It controls the operating system & writes 
applications for that operating system. This is an unbalanced 
playing field. Competitors do NOT have the same access to the 
operating system that Microsoft's developers have.
    Please seek to create a settlement that is more advantageous to 
consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel Peters



MTC-00033416

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 6:23am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement PLEASE READ
    The only thing the Microsoft's competitors really need to level 
the playing field is to have access to Microsoft's file formats, 
free of charge or at most nominal, for the Office range of products. 
Without access to these they will never have the ability to compete 
in the corporate world. IT departments simply cannot ostracize 
themselves by picking an alternate OS then not having compatibility 
with their computers via email and document exchanges. How 
frustrating is it for you when someone sends you a file via email 
that you cannot open, now imagine that times a 1000 or 10,000 how 
long would you keep your customer base.
    There are great products out there that major corporations 
simply cannot afford to use them do to the amount of work involved 
in getting them to be useable outside of the company by their 
customers and business contacts or partners. Just take Microsoft's 
ability to lock customers in just because that's what every body 
else uses.
    Andre'' Smith
    LMSI Solutions Center
    1981 Snyder Richland Wa 99352
    (509) 373-4207



MTC-00033417

From: Fisher
To: MSvsusdoj
Date: 1/25/02 7:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    In view of the fact that both District Court and Appeals Court 
have determined that Micosoft has violated the Sherman Act, I find 
it difficult to belive that the DOJ's proposed settlment in 
Microsoft's case is in the public interest. As a consumer I don't 
understand, how does the DOJ's decision ensure that I'd be still 
able to obtain the platform, operating system, and other elements of 
computer-ware of my choice when I'm left at the mercy a single, 
mnonopolist, monolithic, vender for all my software needs. In my 
view, the DOJ's decision appears to be stilted in Micosoft's favor 
and appears to foster monopoly, hinder competitive innovation, and 
serve no meaningful consumer interest.
    Most of us have lost our life's savings in Enron's case. And 
now, we are being asked to give up our freedom of choice in 
Microsoft's case.



MTC-00033418

From: PETER MENARDI
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:10am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
PETER MENARDI
1511 CLUBVIEW BLVD. S.
COLUMBUS, OH 43235
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Peter J. Menardi



MTC-00033419

From: Don Dome
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:33am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Dome
40 Sherry Road
Cincinnati, OH 45251-4269
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able

[[Page 30086]]

to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Don Dome



MTC-00033420

From: Ronald Schildroth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Schildroth
24658 Q Ave.
Grundy Center, Ia 50638-8519
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Schildroth



MTC-00033421

From: charles Sellon
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:36am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
charles Sellon
15 Minchin Dr.
Wooburn, MA 01801
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charles A. Sellon



MTC-00033422

From: peter russo, sr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
peter russo, sr
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 30087]]

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    peter a. russo



MTC-00033423

From: peter russo, jr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:39am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
peter russo, jr
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    peter a. russo, jr



MTC-00033424

From: patricia russo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
patricia russo
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted. The terms of the settlement 
offer a fair resolution for all sides of this case: the DOJ, the 
states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft 
will not be broken up and will be able to continue to innovate and 
provide new software and products. Software developers and Internet 
service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have 
unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and thus 
will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for

[[Page 30088]]

the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    patricia agnes russo



MTC-00033425

From: patricia russo
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
patricia russo
103-56 96th Street
Ozone Park, NY 11417
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    patricia angela russo



MTC-00033426

From: Jerome Brenner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:59am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerome Brenner
3221 Windrow Lane
Matthews, NC 28105-3938
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case ? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors? products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    G. Jerome Brenner, Jr.



MTC-00033427

From: John Grein
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 8:00am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Grein
501 Berkey Ave
Swanville, MN 56382-0126
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far

[[Page 30089]]

greater national significance: the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John O. Grein



MTC-00033428

From: Christopher Plummer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 9:33am
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-00033429

From: Mark Ball
To: Tunney Act
Date: 1/25/02 9:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose acceptance of the proposed Microsoft settlement.
    mark



MTC-00033430

From: WILDING Inc.
To: AttyGen Ashcroft
Date: 1/25/02 9:44am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alvin G.Wilding & Charlotte H.Wilding
P.O. Box 311
Shaw Island, WA 98286
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We would like to take this opportunity to convey our opinion 
about the antitrust settlement regarding Microsoft. The United 
States has always been supportive of free enterprise yet now it 
seems the courts are looking to make an example of someone. 
Microsoft is a huge company so they were targeted. The lawsuit is 
superfluous with absolutely no basis. It has dragged on long enough 
and we feel it is time it was brought to a close. Microsoft has 
agreed to terms that are more than fair. They are willing to license 
the internal codes to Windows, which will make it easier for other 
companies to compete. They also have agreed not to retaliate against 
other companies who promote or produce software or hardware that 
competes with Microsoft.
    There are many other terms that Microsoft has agreed to that 
simply should have been asked in the first place. If litigation is 
allowed to continue it would be a waste of time and money. There are 
more pressing matters that the court should focus its attention on. 
I hope that this matter is settled soon.
    Sincerely,
    Alvin G.Wilding
    Charlotte H.Wilding



MTC-00033431

From: William Peters
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 10:09am
Subject: Approve the Microsoft Settlement
William Peters
13314 10th Ave. NE
Seattle, WA 98125
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
Approve the Microsoft Settlement
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after

[[Page 30090]]

purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that 
were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which 
will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    William G. Peters



MTC-00033432

From: Mark Ball
To: Tunney Act
Date: 1/25/02 10:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I oppose adoption of the proposed Microsoft settlement. The 
proposed settlement does not limit or reverse the monopolistic 
practices that brought the trial. Furthermore, the proposed 
settlement grants Microsft rights that, history will show, Microsoft 
will use to expand its monopoly under the protection of the 
settlement.
    I see a strong structural remedy as the only means to prevent 
Microsft's monopoly from expanding into other lines of business. A 
structural remedy must be such that anticompetitive behavior 
directed at competitors will harm Microsoft equity as a natural 
consequence of a capital market. Most likely, this would mean that 
Microsoft must be divided so that post-Microsoft entities will be on 
equal footing as current Microsoft competitors.
    Furthermore, I see continued goverment monitoring as impotent. I 
suggest that the settlement grant non-Microsoft entities who must do 
business with Microsoft due to Microsoft monopoly the right to sue 
for and recover damages when Microsoft makes unfavorable changes to 
their relationship due to the non-Microsoft entity's utilization of 
non-Microsoft software.
    Mark Ball



MTC-00033433

From: Susan Peters
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 10:15am
Subject: Approve the Microsoft Settlement
Susan Peters
13314 10th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Peters



MTC-00033434

From: Christopher Albright
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 10:42am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christopher Albright
P.O. Box 442
Harvey, LA 70059-0442
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.

[[Page 30091]]

    Sincerely yours,
    Christopher Albright



MTC-00033435

From: Denise (038) Jim Nice
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 11:08am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Denise & Jim Nice
    3801 Montevista Rd.
    Cleveland Heights, OH 44121-1612
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033436

From: Martha Spielman
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 11:20am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company. Our 
Fort Gibson Chamber of Commerce is comprised of 70 members, so I 
speak, representing their voice.
    Respectfully,
    Fort Gibson Chamber of Commerce
    Martha Spielman, Executive Director
    P.O. Box 730
    Fort Gibson, OK 74434-0730
    CC:
    Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033437

From: Ken Wheeler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 12:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ken Wheeler
1580 Hanwood Drive
McConnelsville, OH 43756-9592
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ken Wheeler



MTC-00033438

From: Stephanie Smith
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 12:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephanie Smith
518 Treetop Dr Apt 201
Virginia Beach, VA 23451
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application

[[Page 30092]]

or element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other software developers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephanie Smith



MTC-00033439

From: Michael (038) Sally Pickett
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 12:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Michael & Sally Pickett
    963 Morello Ave.
    Martinez, CA 94553-4749
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033440

From: Ferol & Joan Baskett
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 12:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ferol & Joan Baskett
7338 S.E. Berryton Rd.
Berryton, KS 66409-9601
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ferol & Joan Baskett



MTC-00033441

From: Donald Fogg
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Fogg
16 Governors Terrace
Lancaster, NH 03584
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install

[[Page 30093]]

other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against 
computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using 
products developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an 
unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald A Fogg



MTC-00033442

From: Francis Gallagher, Jr
To: Ashcroft John
Date: 1/25/02 1:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
Francis Gallagher
504 Truman Court
Norristown, PA 19403
January 15, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I have been following the Microsoft antitrust case for a while 
now, and I have become concerned of late that the settlement reached 
last November will not stand. Nine plaintiff states are currently 
seeking to overturn the agreement and reopen the Microsoft case. 
This is foolishly unnecessary. I do not believe the settlement 
reached is unfair, nor do I believe that Microsoft and the Justice 
Department should be forced back into a time-consuming, expensive 
court battle when a perfectly reasonable settlement has already been 
reached. The Department of Justice has, I believe, done an exemplary 
job in satisfying the demands of antitrust legislation and 
formulating terms of agreement that are beneficial both to Microsoft 
and its competitors. Such a difficult task should not have to be 
repeated unnecessarily.
    Microsoft has agreed to a broad range of obligations in the 
settlement, all of which allow its competitors access to the Windows 
operating system and protect them from retaliation on the part of 
Microsoft. For example, Microsoft has agreed to provide third 
parties acting under the terms of the agreement with a license to 
applicable intellectual property rights. Microsoft has also agreed 
to license the Windows operating system and all its products to 
twenty of the largest computer makers. I do not believe any more 
needs to be required of Microsoft, nor do I believe that competing 
software makers have been left holding the short end of the stick. 
Everyone can benefit from this agreement, and this is why I cannot 
support those who feel that the settlement needs to be overturned 
and further modifications made.
    Sir, the settlement reached prevents Microsoft from further 
violations of antitrust laws. I see no reason to take additional 
action on the federal level. I urge you and your office to allow 
business to return to normal and to let November's settlement carry 
through.
    cc: Senator Rick Santorum
    Sincerely,
    Francis Gallagher



MTC-00033443

From: frank senko
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
frank senko
535 Gilford Ave.
Toms River, NJ 08753-8234
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit.
    The parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which 
has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or 
years from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    frank p. senko



MTC-00033444

From: Constance Root
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Constance Root
8472 Maplewood Lane
Lenexa, KS 66215
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ,

[[Page 30094]]

the states, Microsoft, competitors, consumers and taxpayers. 
Microsoft will not be broken up and will be able to continue to 
innovate and provide new software and products. Software developers 
and Internet service providers (ISPs), including competitors, will 
have unprecedented access to Microsoft's programming language and 
thus will be able to make Microsoft programs compatible with their 
own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,
    which will have to be modified to comply with the settlement. 
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American consumers. We 
have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment 
portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more 
than ever, the country needs the economic stability this settlement 
can provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge 
the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Constance J Root



MTC-00033445

From: Sharon Foley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharon Foley
1609 South Lee St.
Lakewood, CO 80232
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sharon Foley



MTC-00033446

From: Elizabeth Beyne
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elizabeth Beyne
521 Oak Street
Marquette, MI 49855
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    E F Beyne



MTC-00033447

From: Margie O. Easter

[[Page 30095]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 2:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Margie O. Easter
849 Knollwood village
Southern Pines, NC 28387-3007
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Margie O. Easter



MTC-00033448

From: Ronald Carlen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 2:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Carlen
4 Skyview Road
Wayne, NJ 07470-6283
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald J. Carlen



MTC-00033449

From: Patricia Beck
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 3:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Patricia Beck
    6699 Capricorn Ln. NE
    Bremerton, WA 98311-7953
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033450

From: erin larsen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 3:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

[[Page 30096]]

erin larsen
600 sw kenyon st #d302
seattle, wa 98106
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    erin larsen



MTC-00033451

From: Charlie Dromgoole
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 3:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Charlie Dromgoole
    P. O. Box 2281
    Abilene, TX 79604-2281
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033452

From: Thomas McCartney
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 4:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Thomas McCartney
2114 C.R. 442
La Veta, Co 81055-9658
January 25, 2002 Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would
    like to express my support for the revised proposed Final 
Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has 
cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas F. McCartney



MTC-00033453

From: Jack A Milavic
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 4:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Jack A Milavic
650 Jubilee Street
Melbourne, Fl 32940

[[Page 30097]]

January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse.:
    I would like to strongly express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jack A. Milavic



MTC-00033454

From: Alice Egland
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 4:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Alice Egland
131 Hawthorne Court
Rockaway, NJ 07866
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Alice Egland



MTC-00033455

From: Chester A. Phillips, Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Chester A. Phillips, Jr.
712 Foxtail Court
Naples, FL 34104-5103
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in

[[Page 30098]]

an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work 
out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the 
company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Chester A. Phillips, Jr. M.D.



MTC-00033456

From: Shirley Tomich
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/25/02 5:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Shirley Tomich
    1142 West 15th Street
    San Pedro, CA 90731-3826
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033457

From: Walter Glatz
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Glatz
7200 Walton Road
Walton Hills, Oh 44146
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Walter Glatz



MTC-00033458

From: Gerry Cairns
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerry Cairns
26 Millport Drive
The Woodlands, Tx 77382
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of

[[Page 30099]]

Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gerry Cairns



MTC-00033459

From: Helen Orr
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Helen Orr
6108 Lafreniere St.
Metairie, La 70003-3641
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Helen Orr



MTC-00033460

From: Christian S. Young
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 5:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Christian S. Young
16007 Fontaine Aveneu
Austin, TX 78734-2644
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.
    Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Christian S. Young



MTC-00033461

From: John Standal
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Standal
440 Hao Street
Honolulu, HI 96821
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.

[[Page 30100]]

    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Standal



MTC-00033462

From: clayton patterson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
clayton patterson
3420 ellenmere drive
sacramento, ca 95821-6212
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    clayton patterson



MTC-00033463

From: Alan Lane
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/25/02 7:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Alan Lane
2931 Pine Cone Circle
Clearwater, Fl 33760
January 25, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers

[[Page 30101]]

issues and software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such 
as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the 
settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Alan Lane



MTC-00033464

From: Fred H. Greenwood
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/25/02 8:24pm
Subject: RE'' Microsoft Settlement
BlankDear General Ashcroft:
Please read the attached letter.
Thank you, and sincerely yours,
Fred H. Greenwood
FRED H. GREENWOOD
7 Kirkwood Road, West Hartford, CT 06117-2830
TEL (860) 232-7894
E-mail: [email protected]
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear General Ashcroft:
    The purpose of my letter is to express my support for Microsoft 
in the three-year antitrust dispute. Microsoft is a company that I 
admire, and whose products I use daily, both for my business as well 
as in my private life. Microsoft has contributed a great deal to our 
society and daily lives; stifling this company will not benefit 
anyone. I urge you to support the settlement reached in November. I 
also think it is disgusting that Mr. Blumenthal and several other 
states'' Attorney Generals are still pursuing this case.
    This settlement is fair and reasonable. Microsoft has agreed to 
grant computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with programs 
included within Windows. Microsoft also has agreed to document and 
disclose for use by its competitors various interfaces that are 
internal to Windows. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to be 
monitored for compliance. In my opinion, Microsoft has done nothing 
that has hurt me as a consumer and as the owner of a small business.
    Since a settlement has been reached between both parties, I see 
no reason to prolong this dispute. Our nation's resources, 
especially at this time, should be devoted to more important issues. 
I think that you, personally, as well as your staff, are doing a 
great job for our country! Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely yours,
    Fred H. Greenwood
    C:-bswin-bste
mp/microsof.doc



MTC-00033465

From: Frank N. Peterson
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/25/02 9:25pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Department of Justice:
    The case against Microsoft has dragged on long enough. It needs 
to be settled and I think the agreement reached is reasonable. It is 
now the responsibility of the DOJ to get AOL and the other states 
holding out to drop their complaints.
    My experience with computers is limited but the worst possible 
service I have tried to use came from AOL. It was unreliable and 
difficult to use. When I shifted to Microsoft programs and service, 
it was like night and day. Whatever Microsoft did produced a 
superior, easy to use product and my ability to expand my computer 
use was enhanced.
    The gripes by AOL (hardly a minor player when it comes to 
monopolies) and Oren Hatch as well as others, seem to be petty 
because they are losers in the creativity related to the world of 
computing.
    In short, it is time to move forward--not to drag this on 
further. Enough damage has been done already by the Department of 
Justice in fostering the lawsuit. Settle it now and let the players 
see how creative they can be. There is plenty of room for innovation 
for all parties.
    Sincerely,
    Frank N. Peterson.



MTC-00033466

From: David Greenwood
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 5:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Greenwood
12 East View DRive
Farmington, Ct 06032
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    David Greenwood



MTC-00033467

From: Gregory LeDuc
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 6:54am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gregory LeDuc
95 Church Street
Harwich, Ma 02645
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The

[[Page 30102]]

parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory J. LeDuc



MTC-00033468

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 7:13am
Subject: Microsoft vs. DofJ Settlement
January 26, 2002
    To Whom It May Concern;
    As a citizen and, most importantly, a veteran, voter and 
taxpayer I cannot understand why the DoJ is still wasting the 
taxpayers money and its valuable time. The Microsoft settlement is 
the face-saving end to a wholly unconstitutional, politically 
corrupt attack on this successful business. The depths of corruption 
displayed by the previous Administration in falsely bringing on this 
suit are, forever, a blight on this nation's integrity.
    The present Administration and its DoJ representatives bring 
nothing but disgrace and contempt on themselves for pursuing this 
frivolous action even to the extent to which you have brought it 
today.
    Settle the damned suit and get on with real problems such as the 
WAR!! A less than impressed citizen, veteran, voter and taxpayer,
    Jim Bronson, KC8RBI
    Frankenmuth, Michigan



MTC-00033469

From: Jim Anderson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 7:47am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jim Anderson
120 Gratiot Court
Saginaw, MI 48602
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jim D. Anderson



MTC-00033470

From: smith
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 9:00am
Subject: damage
    The terrorist acts certainly damaged our economy, but in my 
opinion the economy was already turning down, and it was brought on 
by actions of our own Government, when IT pre-sued a major player in 
our world--Microsoft. Some of that damage can be reversed by 
allowing the settlement to proceed.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Smith



MTC-00033471

From: Champagne Lady
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/26/02 10:31 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Please see the attached document. Thank you. Leslie Whitman
Leslie Whitman
P.O. Box 500598
Marathon, FL 33050
January 21, 2002
A.G. John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today in regards to Microsoft. I support this 
company in the three year antitrust litigation that has gone on. 
Microsoft is being wrongfully punished for being successful, and the 
settlement reached in November will serve in the best public 
interest.
    This settlement is thorough. Among the many terms Microsoft has 
agreed to, provisions such as sharing more information with other 
companies will aid companies in their pursuits to compete. Microsoft 
has agreed to disclose various interfaces that are part of Windows 
operating systems for its competitors. Microsoft has also agreed to 
make available any protocols implemented in Windows operating system 
on reasonable terms.
    This settlement not only allows Microsoft to remain together, 
but it will also foster competition. Please support this settlement

[[Page 30103]]

so Microsoft can get back to the business of designing innovative 
software.
    Sincerely,
    Leslie Whitman



MTC-00033472

From: Francis Murray
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 10:38am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Francis Murray
1839 S. Abrego Dr.
Green Valley,, AZ 85614-1401
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Francis A. Murray



MTC-00033473

From: Susan Levitsky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 10:52am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Susan Levitsky
5 Holland Ave
Albany, NY 12205-5013
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Levitsky



MTC-00033474

From: Billie Allensworth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 11:06am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Billie Allensworth
2411 Winter Park Road
Winter Park, FL 32789-6108
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance ? the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's

[[Page 30104]]

programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Billie Allensworth



MTC-00033475

From: Richard H. Skeppstrom
To: DoJ
Date: 1/26/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    In my view the settlement reached among the Department of 
Justice, nine states, and Microsoft is a fair and reasonable 
compromise which should be implemented with as little delay as 
possible. Continuing litigation would have a negative effect on the 
entire software and computer industries as it would create further 
uncertainty about the future of those enterprises thus inhibiting 
investment and progress. In these economic doldrums, more 
uncertainty is exactly what we do not need.
    Thank you for your kind attention to my concerns.
    Yours truly,
    Richard H. Skeppstrom
    2601 Bayview Boulevard
    Portsmouth, VA 23707-1504



MTC-00033476

From: Sheldon Flowers
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 11:21am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sheldon Flowers
555 Laramie Trail
Cincinnati , OH 45215
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sheldon R. Flowers



MTC-00033477

From: JOHN CARROLL
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 11:27am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
JOHN CARROLL
911 N TAWAS LAKE
E TAWAS, MI 48730
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    John J CarrollI would like to express my support for the revised 
proposed Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case? the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers

[[Page 30105]]

issues and software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such 
as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the 
settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    JOHN J CARROLL



MTC-00033478

From: Verne Robinson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Verne Robinson
226 W. Works
Sheridan, wy 82801
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Verne and Mary Robinson



MTC-00033479

From: Ralph Lennerth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 12:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Lennerth
6107 Boston Rd.
Valley City , Oh 44280
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Lennerth



MTC-00033480

From: Walter Knoepfel
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Walter Knoepfel
1723 Sanchez St
San Francisco, CA 94121-2740
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. After reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit, the Department of Justice and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater 
significance. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: Microsoft,

[[Page 30106]]

competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers, 
including competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Walter P. Knoepfel



MTC-00033481

From: Ward K. Wilkinson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 1:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ward K. Wilkinson
4206 Hockaday Dr.
Dallas, Tx 75229
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ward K. Wilkinson



MTC-00033482

From: Ronald Zacharek
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 1:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Zacharek
1019 E. Knox Dr.
Tucson, AZ 85719
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Zacharek



MTC-00033483

From: Bluebell Standal
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bluebell Standal
440 Hao Street
Honolulu, HI 96821

[[Page 30107]]

January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dr. Bluebell R. Standal



MTC-00033484

From: Otto Zuber
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 2:49pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Otto Zuber
1660 Pine Valley Dr
Fort Myers, FL 33907-5754
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Otto Zuber



MTC-00033485

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Verifying you as cosigner of Open Letter to DOJ
In <[email protected]>, on 01/
25/2002 at 10:54 PM, [email protected] said:
    Thanks for joining my open letter to the DOJ!
    To make sure nobody is using your email account without 
permission, I
    need you to reply to this message and fill in the following 
fields
    as you would like them to appear in the open letter:
    Name: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
    City: Annandale
    State: Virginia
    Title:
    Organization: Atid/2
    I encourage you, if you have not already done so, to send a 
quick
    note directly to the DOJ by fax or email (see
    http://www.kegel.com/remedy for how) summing up your point of 
view
    and endorsing my open letter.
    I've already sent a message to DOJ outlining my concerns and 
what I believe to be the minimum acceptable remedy. I've cc'd them 
on this since I did not mention your open letter in my comments. 
Please understand that while I endorse everything in your letter, 
and gladly offer my name in support, it did not address all of my 
concerns, so I felt that it was appropriate to send my message on 
its own.
    Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
    Atid/2
    Team OS/2



MTC-00033486

From: Richard Martin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 3:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Martin
2018 W. Niobe Ave
Anaheim, CA 92804
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than

[[Page 30108]]

$35 million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard C. Martin



MTC-00033487

From: kenneth bridgers
To: USDOJ.GOV.,[email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    dear sir,
    i am 69 years old and have had a computer for 2 years and 
enjoying it. the windows system has enabled me to learn, i would 
never learn using the ms-dos system. if i had computers with windows 
system when i was in grade school i would have been an A student ! 
this settlement could mean that some underprivledged students may be 
the ones that solve some of the worlds'' problems.
    please do not penalize microsoft for building a better mouse 
trap. i beleave most people want these lawsuits to end so that 
microsoft and the other hi-tech companies can lead this economy 
forward.
    thank you for your time,
    kenneth r. bridgers
    188 louise street
    bridge city, texas 77611



MTC-00033488

From: Leonard Biederman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 3:57pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leonard Biederman
6162 Westerham Rd.
Mayfield Hts., OH 44124-3308
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Leonard Biederman



MTC-00033489

From: Marjorie Barraclough
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 4:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie Barraclough
4451 Lewistown, PA 17044
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service

[[Page 30109]]

providers (ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented 
access to Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to 
make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Marjorie E. Barraclough



MTC-00033490

From: Craig Hammargren
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 4:39pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Craig Hammargren
2748 Cobblestone Court
Fargo, ND 58103
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Craig Hammargren



MTC-00033491

From: Howard B Lewine
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:20pm
Subject: Settlement
    Gentlemen.
    Please be advised as a Senior Citizen and long time user of 
Microsoft's software, I urge you to implement the proposed antitrust 
settlement. Sincerely, Howard Lewine



MTC-00033492

From: SJ Worrall
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:20pm
Subject: Antitrust Settlement
    The settlement proposed by The DOJ certainly does not contribute 
to the economy of the country and in my opionion represents a huge 
(tax supported) group of lawyers seeking to justify their jobs. 
Settle the D--- lawsuit and let Microsoft get on with their job 
of creating software, advancing the economy of the the country and 
making profit. Competition is good. Microsoft certainly does not and 
never has had a monopoly. The industry moves too fast for that to 
happen.
    S.J. Worrall



MTC-00033493

From: Betty Scheid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:20pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please allow the market to function in its normal way and halt 
any further litigation in this matter. The events surrounding this 
case have mainly served to enrich a gaggle of lawyers while bringing 
down a very productive segment of our economy. It is time to put a 
stop to the whole ugly mess and the sooner, the better.
    B. J. Scheid
    Citizen



MTC-00033494

From: E W Dreier
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/26/02 5:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement



MTC-00033495

From: Gregory Liban
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/26/02 6:28pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
    Dear Department of Justice:
    Please leave Microsoft alone. I constantly sense that people are 
seeking revenge against Microsoft in a mistaken way. Microsoft is 
not a Tobacco company whose products have caused cancer. Microsoft 
is also not a company whom has thrived because it squeezes out 
competition just for the sake of market share.
    Microsoft wants to give a Billion dollars worth of Computer 
equipment to those who need it, and whose side does the government 
take. Gee, not with those whom might need the computers, but with 
Microsoft's competitors! So where is the cancer here? Now, because 
its competitors aren't happy, they want to question the very 
decision of the court and the precepts of the decision in the 
Microsoft case. Come on; let's get our thinking hats on straight. 
What is deciding the decision of all the Microsoft issues? Is it 
poor competition, or poor politics? What is the cancer here? Has 
government killed the cancer, or is it feeding the cancer? Perhaps 
the government needs to take a couple of steps back and really 
figure out what is going on.
    Why can't half the automation equipment purchased by Microsoft 
come from its competitors like Linux, Sun or BeOS. I can answer 
that! It's because it doesn't meet the need of the common user. Duh? 
Apple is a niche product--or at least its in many of the 
schools. Gee, why can't Apple be called a monopoly? Perhaps the 
government needs to spur across-the-board automation industry growth 
in non-legal means. I enjoy Microsoft products and they provide jobs 
to millions of people in the computer industry. Moreover,

[[Page 30110]]

Microsoft leads the industry in innovation and meeting the 
consumer's needs. Don't disrupt a company that helps all of us in so 
many needs. Moreover, I ask that you don't listen to all the voices 
that shout Microsoft hatred!
    Being a politician or someone in political office isn't always 
popular. I know because I work in the Federal Government. But, we 
are always entitled to make good decisions based upon the best 
available information. Good or bad, easy or hard.
    Sincerely,
    Gregory Liban
    6100 East Rancier Avenue
    Lot #349
    Killeen, TX 76543-8897



MTC-00033496

From: Michael Emery
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 7:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement M
ichael Emery
21257 Del Oro Road
Apple Valley, Ca 92308-7746
January 26, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Michael A. Emery



MTC-00033497

From: Robert P. Clark, Jr.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 9:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert P. Clark, Jr.
200 W. 34th Ave., #344
Anchorage, AK 99503-3969
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert P. Clark, Jr.



MTC-00033498

From: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/26/02 9:09pm
Subject:
Message-ID: <009101cla6f0$c7e107e0$e30d389d 
@redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
From: ``Van Van'' 
To: 
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2002 21:09:21 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary='' 
_NextPart_000008C_01C1A6AD.B98E5370''
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_008C_01C1A6A
D.B98E5370
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=``iso-8859-1''
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I believe that the settlement of the United States of America 
vs. Microsoft Corporation is in the best interest of the American 
public and should be accepted by the District Court. I admit that it 
is difficult to ascertain the

[[Page 30111]]

minute details of the settlement. I would have preferred a document 
in laymen's terms published on the DOJ website that detailed the 
finer points of the document including the impact of said settlement 
for the American public. Instead, I had to gather as much 
information as I could from reading the briefs as well as seek out 
supplemental documents to reinforce my understanding.
    I believe this settlement is in the best public interest for 
several reasons. First and foremost, I believe the settlement to be 
fair for all parties--restricting Microsoft from certain 
practices but allowing for entrepreneurial innovation so that the 
industry may progress unabated. The most important point to note is 
that we cannot stifle competitiveness nor creativity while we reign 
in behaviors and actions. We must ensure that the consumer benefits 
from this settlement and I believe that they do.
    Second, this case has gone on for quite a while and consumes 
resources, both from the US government as well as Microsoft. Putting 
an end to this will result in freed up resources to do other things 
that is beneficial to the American public. For the government, it 
might be diverting these millions of dollars towards litigation to 
other areas such as Homeland Security. For Microsoft, it may mean 
diverting these same legal fees to perhaps making better products or 
reducing cost for the consumer. On both fronts, the benefits are 
significant and immediately impactful.
    Third, in the light of recent events, including the burst of the 
Internet bubble, the US economy weakening, the September 11th 
attack, the War Against Terrorism, and Homeland Security, the 
American public has enough to deal with. When one compares the 
September 11th incident with this case, there is absolutely no 
comparison. Though this case is very important and does affect the 
American public, recent events have relegated this case to a second 
class citizen at best, which is a good thing considering the more 
important and urgent needs of this country. Continuing this case 
will only burden the American public and interest. Putting this down 
and allowing the country to focus on other more important issues 
will give this country more of a chance to quickly get back on our 
feet and move on from the many disappointments of these past few 
years and hopefully move into a much brighter and prosperous era for 
us all.
    It no longer matters who is right and who is wrong. What matters 
is that at the end of the day, the American interest is preserved 
and the American public is protected. I believe the best way to do 
this is to move on from this case--accept the settlement and 
move on.
    As an ancient Chinese saying illustrates--what happens when 
two boulders try to prove to each other that one is stronger by 
crushing people between them? It didn't really matter in the 
end--no one was alive to talk about it.
    All jest aside, I hope this illustrates that ultimately we are 
all working for the best of the American people. Let's make sure 
that happens. Let's focus on the really important things in life. 
Let's move on from this matter.
    Humbly yours,
    Van C. Van



MTC-00033499

From: Marjorie Stump
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 9:14pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie Stump
917 Hwy 20 N
Thermopolis, WY 82443
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mrs. Marjorie Stump



MTC-00033500

From: Marjorie Ryan
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/26/02 10:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Marjorie Ryan
1448 Larson Road
Roseburg, OR 97470-9773
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.

[[Page 30112]]

    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Marjorie L. Ryan



MTC-00033501

From: Jane Williford
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/26/02 10:50pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Jane Williford
    142 Aycock Drive
    Goldsboro, NC 27530-9500
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033502

From: Eleanor Klar
To: Atty Gen Aschccroft
Date: 1/26/02 11:51pm
Subject: RE:Microsoft Settlement
11211 E Springfield Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    There has recently been a settlement to the antitrust lawsuit 
between Microsoft and the Department of Justice. While I do not 
agree with the relentless pursuit of the Microsoft Corporation, I am 
happy to see that a settlement has been reached. The United States 
government needs to move on and worry about more important issues.
    Microsoft will now be working much closer and communicating much 
more with their competitors. They will be giving their competitors 
code and other information that makes-up the Windows operating 
system. They will also be allowing their competitors to remove 
Microsoft-made software from Windows, and replace it with non-
Microsoft software. Enough is enough. Microsoft agreed to terms that 
extend well beyond what was issue in the initial suit, just for the 
sake of ending this senselessness. I support this settlement and 
would like to see it implemented as soon as possible.
    Sincerely,
    Eleanor Kiar



MTC-00033503

From: MARIO MARTINEZ,SR.
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:30am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
MARIO MARTINEZ,SR.
P.O.BOX 21197
HOUSTON, TX 77226
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    MARIO MARTINEZ,SR.



MTC-00033504

From: Mtume Imani
To: Justice Department
Date: 1/27/02 7:16am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Justice Department:
    This e-mail is to add my voice to the settlement of the 
Microsoft case before you. The public and consumer interest has been 
very well served, and the time to end this costly and damaging 
litigation has come. I do not want the special interests to defeat 
the public interest in this case. The proposed settlement offers a 
reasonable compromise that will enhance the ability of seniors and 
all Americans to access the InterNet and use innovative software 
products to make our computer experience easier and more enjoyable.
    I RAISE MY VOICE--STOP THE SELF-SERVING, PUNITIVE LOBBYING 
NOW. SET
    MICROSOFT FREE!
    Member--The Seniors Coalition



MTC-00033505

From: Elisha Nall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:00am

[[Page 30113]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elisha Nall
729 Mac Arthur
Wake Village, TX 75501-6163
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Elisha Nall



MTC-00033506

From: Vickie Nall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Vickie Nall
729 Mac Arthur
Wake Village, TX 75501-6163
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Vickie Nall



MTC-00033507

From: Nathan Nall
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nathan Nall
729 Mac Arthur
Wake Village, TX 75501-6163
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other

[[Page 30114]]

software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Nathan Nall



MTC-00033508

From: Richard Roullard and Shirley Roberts
To: John Ashcroft
Date: 1/27/02 11:26am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Roullard
562 Basil Road
Oak Harbor, WA 98277
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a user of Microsoft products, I'm writing to voice my support 
for the recent settlement reached between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department. I feel that the settlement is reasonable and benefits 
all of us. For example, Microsoft has agreed to open up its 
operating system to allow computer makers to remove Microsoft 
products and install competing products in their places. Microsoft 
has also agreed that they won't take any action against computer 
makers that choose to ship or develop competing operating systems.
    Based on these facts, I encourage you to support this 
settlement. Ultimately, the competitive environment this settlement 
encourages will benefit consumers and our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Richard Roullard



MTC-00033509

From: Harry Moore
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 11:45am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Harry Moore
P.O.Box 2180
Atascadero, CA 93423-2180
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Harry J. Moore



MTC-00033510

From: Dorothy Jansen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Jansen
8507 Wentworth Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55420-2253
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which

[[Page 30115]]

will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy Jansen



MTC-00033511

From: Thomas Prantner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 1:30pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Prantner
8350Aldrich Ave. S.
Bloomington, MN 55420-2259
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Prantner



MTC-00033512

From: norman davis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 1:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
norman davis
123 Marmora road
parsippany, nj 07054
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Norman T. Davis



MTC-00033513

From: William Ransom
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 2:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William Ransom
1616 Ocean Dr., Apt. 307
Vero Beach, Fl 32963
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.

[[Page 30116]]

    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely
    W. R. Ransom



MTC-00033514

From: Walter Schmidt
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/27/02 4:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-307-1454--202-616-9937
Email: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    Microsoft continues in its role as a leader in the Information 
Technology industry. They do this not by luck, but because they are 
the best at what they do. Microsoft has given us, the business user, 
the ability to do things we only dreamt of a decade ago. They have 
done this efficiently and effectively, while at the same time their 
products have developed a network of satisfied users.
    It appears other companies are now trying to take advantage of 
Microsoft's current situation because they are unable to accomplish 
on their own what Microsoft has successfully done. To continue 
litigation, already agreed to by the Department of Justice, nine 
states and Microsoft, would prove to be a waste of time and money.
    As an Information Technologies CPA, I continue to use Microsoft 
products as part of my day-to-day work routine. I do this after an 
ever continuing and exhaustive review of available products, and 
because I feel that they continue to be the best, the market has to 
offer.
    The settlement currently under review is fair. Microsoft has 
agreed to terms that will allow other companies to be better 
equipped to compete. So far, the passage of time without litigation 
resolution has caused little harm. Nevertheless, this issue needs to 
be resolved before it does do serious harm to either Microsoft, the 
Information Technologies industry, or our country's economy. I would 
hope the Justice Department feels the same way, sees that the 
proffered settlement is indeed in the public interest, and submits 
its final report, recommending acceptance of the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Walter C. Schmidt, CPA
    383 Second Avenue
    Massapequa Park, NY 11762
    516.799.8300
    Cc: Microsoft
    FAX: 800-641-2255
    Email: [email protected]
    CC:Microsoft,Walter Schmidt



MTC-00033515

From: Henrietta Conway
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 4:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henrietta Conway
571 Oak Park Way
Emerald Hills, CA 94062
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Henrietta Conway



MTC-00033516

From: IAN J. PATTERSON
To: Department Of Justice
Date: 1/27/02 4:37pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    To Whom It May Concern,
    YES: I firmly believe that settlement between Microsoft, the 
Justice Department and bipartisan groups of State Attorneys General 
in the original antitrust case IS in the best interest of our Great 
Nation.
    I also believe that special interest groups/parties consumed 
with envy, jealousy, unearned potential personal gain, have 
``piled on '' the anti-trust case in a most unpatriotic 
way. Thankfully they are a pitiful minority! The predjudiced 
behavior of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson during this sad saga has 
been most dismaying to say the least!
    The vast majority of States representing The American People 
want settlement!
    LET'S MOVE ON !!
    IT WILL BENEFIT US AND COMMUNITIES AROUND THE WORLD!!!
    Sincerely,
    Ian J. Patterson
    3423 181st PL NE

[[Page 30117]]

    Redmond WA 98052
    (I'm NOT a Microsoft employee, but hope we restore their FULL 
FREEDOM TO INNOVATE REAL SOON.)



MTC-00033517

From: Donald Helgeson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Helgeson
2008 Roundleaf Green
Huntsville, AL 35803-1832
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald V. Helgeson



MTC-00033518

From: Edwin Webster
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edwin Webster
69 Red Dog Rd.
Winthrop, WA 98862
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    E.H.Webster



MTC-00033519

From: Beverly Riese
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 5:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Beverly Riese
2608 West 3rd
Hastings, Ne 68901-4615
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able

[[Page 30118]]

to make Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors 
also benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers 
to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Beverly Riese



MTC-00033520

From: M. June Poff
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:22pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
M. June Poff
P.O. Box 776
Helendale, CA 92342
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    M. June Poff



MTC-00033521

From: Carl Schoettler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Carl Schoettler
1706 SE 10th Place
Cape Coral, FL 33990-4503
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Carl A. Schoettler



MTC-00033522

From: Thomas Krolosky
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:44pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Krolosky
500 Rose Ave.
Long Beach, Ca 90802
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse

[[Page 30119]]

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas J. Krolosky



MTC-00033523

From: Mary Mulloy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 6:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mary Mulloy
500 Rose Ave.
Long Beach, Ca 90802
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Ann Mulloy



MTC-00033524

From: Dan Marinescu
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 6:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Best Regards,
Dan Marinescu
CC: Microsoft ATR
Dan Marinescu
200 Button Street, Unit 84D
Santa Cruz, California 95060
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I have worked in the IT industry for several years and recently 
became certified as a Systems Engineer. I am very excited about my 
field, because it has allowed me the opportunity to grow with the 
rapidly changing industry. During my time in this industry I have 
had the opportunity to truly admire different companies for what 
their efforts have done to improve the IT industry. Microsoft is one 
such company. From the very beginning, Microsoft took the lead in 
the game with solid innovation that resulted in high-quality 
products that are easily accessible to consumers at very reasonable 
prices. I admire Microsoft because they exemplify success.
    It is sad to see that they are now being punished for the same 
some success that help build the country's IT industry. This is 
shameful betrayal of the spirit of free enterprise! I am writing to 
ask that you do all that is within your power to end this matter. I 
believe that terms of the settlement were well reviewed, are fair, 
and should be formalized as soon as possible and release Microsoft 
to spread its wings of innovation once again. Looking at the 
concessions that Microsoft has already made--releasing 
protocols, code, and intellectual property--it is fair to 
assume that their will be no further antitrust violations.
    So please wrap this up. The public is counting on you.
    Sincerely,
    Dan Marinescu



MTC-00033525

From: Swasti Sarna
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/27/02 7:01pm
    Public input is always an important thing for major issues that 
serve and were meant to be made for the population. Many people 
think that Microsoft should not be allowed to

[[Page 30120]]

settle with Netscape because Microsoft is constantly causing 
monopolies, and without finally being seriously and fairly punished, 
the company may be unable to ever quit their nasty habit. Netscape 
should sue Microsoft for a reasonable amount of money, and Microsoft 
should resolve Netscape's problem by performing some sort of a task 
for Netscape's benefit in addition to paying them money.
    As you may know, many historical events have happened involving 
monopolies. Historical events include when AT&T controlled all 
phone services in the United States. People thought this was unfair 
so the courts split it up and new businesses formed such as Pacific 
Bell and long distance phone services started like Sprint and MCI. 
Another example of a past major monopoly was with the oil companies, 
which also had to be broken up. A very common one was with the 
railroads. The Supreme Court said, and everyone should have this 
perspective of benefit to the people, was: The Supreme Court 
established the governments right to regulate businesses and to 
protect public interests.? All these events had many different good 
ideas to resolve their problems, and monopolies with these companies 
never happened again. Overall, Microsoft definitely should be 
punished and should not be allowed to settle with Netscape.



MTC-00033526

From: Wilson Kown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 7:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wilson Kown
25 Mission Hills Drive, SW
Cartersville, GA 30120-7451
January 27, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Wilson Kown



MTC-00033527

From: Jeff Loether
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:12pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Settle already and let's get on with it.
    The only way trying to de-monopolize Microsoft would make sense 
is if it would also be applied to Apple which, of course, would kill 
the company. And it doesn't make sense. Microsoft isn't a company 
with a conspiracy; or a cult of some sort; it is a group of smart 
young people who are trying their hardest to make the computing 
experience as awesome as they possibly can. I am in awe at the 
intelligence and service that the integration of environment, 
application, and Internet can provide, as demonstrated with XP. 
Encourage competition to catch up; don't hobble the lead horse.
    And, for the record, I do not own any Microsoft stock, I know 
nobody who works there, and can't yet imagine any way of personal 
gain, if Microsoft succeeds or fails.
    All the Best,
    Jeff Loether, President
    Electro-Media Design, Ltd.
    AudioVisual and Acoustical Consulting
    vox: (301) 309-0110
    fax: (301) 309-0039
    www.electro-media.com



MTC-00033528

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
27 Jan 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft Corporation 
antitrust case. I wish to state how disappointed I am in US Atty. 
Gen. John Ashcroft, Illinois Atty. Gen. Jim Ryan, and all the other 
states'' attys. general in this extremely weak and poor 
settlement with the Microsoft Corporation.
    With their track record of poor products and their quashing of 
almost every possible threat to their monopoly (such as the cases 
with Netscape and their pending litigation against Lindows), 
Microsoft has acted against the public's welfare and has cost the 
economy great quantities of productivity. For example, assuming a 
user base of one million users who must endure one crash of their 
Microsoft OS, a 240 day work-year of 8 hour work-days and an average 
salary of $22,500, those unscheduled coffee breaks cost a total of 
over $29,000,000 per annum in lost productivity. This amount does 
not take into account the time needed to recreate lost works in 
progress or delays to customer inquiries because of the delays.
    I also wish to add that I am in full agreement with the 
statements of Dan Kegel, located online at http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/letter.html ; Jeremy P. White, CEO of CodeWeavers, Inc, 
located online at http://www.codeweavers.com/jwhite/tunneywine.html 
; and the Free Software Foundation, located online at http://
www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html.
    Any settlement with Microsoft is unsatisfactory. This company, 
and its management, need to be punished much more severely than this 
settlement possibly would.
    Sincerely,
    Andrew Valkanas
    2523 W Farwell Ave
    Chicago IL 60645



MTC-00033529

From: James Austin
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a concerned citizen, I wish to offer comment concerning the 
proposed settlement of United States v. Microsoft.
    I am a civilian employee of an agency of the United States 
Government, where my job function is the administration of a network 
of personal computers and the technical support of the users of 
those computers.

[[Page 30121]]

However, I offer the following comments purely as a private citizen, 
without the encouragement or even the knowledge of my employer.
    I have been an interested observer of the computer industry in 
various capacities for more than twenty years, and have been 
professionally involved in the industry for ten. In that time I have 
seen the development of the industry from a perspective rather 
different from that usually discussed. My experience is that of 
someone who has directly used the technology and helped others to 
use the technology, working alongside both the users of that 
technology and others whose professional duties were similar to my 
own. These experiences have taught me several things which I am 
compelled to share.
    First: The case of United States v. Microsoft is almost 
certainly one of the most important cases of all time, for how this 
is resolved will have repercussions certain to outlive anyone of 
this generation now participating in the actual case.
    What is at stake is not merely the future practices of one 
corporation, or even the future structure of one industry. What is 
at stake is nothing less than the nature of access to information, 
from the individual citizen to the largest private and public 
institutions.
    Many years ago, I heard of a Jesuit philosopher who had written 
about an idea he called the ``knowlosphere.'' He imagined 
that as more and more information was transmitted via computer 
technology, there would arise around the earth a sort of 
``sphere of knowledge'' that would surround the earth the 
same way the atmosphere does, and that there would come a point in 
which the essential sum total of all human knowledge would exist 
within this sphere. Furthermore, this would eventually become so 
important to the lives of people that it would become impossible to 
switch off once switched on. Though he imagined this in terms of 
communications satellites (the highest technology available to him 
at the time), I maintain that a world of personal computers all 
connected via the worldwide Internet is the true realization of this 
vision.
    We must now ask ourselves this question: do we wish to allow, 
indeed do we dare allow, the fundamental infrastructure of human 
knowledge and thought to become in practice (if not directly in law) 
the private commercial domain of one corporation?
    Second: Microsoft already monopolizes several areas of computer 
technology, and is working hard to monopolize others.
    This point seems hardly worth discussing, because as I write 
this, the courts have repeatedly ruled that Microsoft is indeed a 
monopoly and is guilty of breaking the law. What is more interesting 
is that to this very day, I am unaware of any admission Microsoft 
has ever offered, to anyone at any time, that it has been found 
guilty of breaking any law. Indeed, only within the last few months 
has it acknowledged in any public statements that any court rulings 
went against it, and vaguely at that.
    Third: Microsoft has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted 
even with the level of power it enjoys today.
    Microsoft portrays all concern over its power and actions as 
solely the product of disgruntled competitors. While even that would 
justify intervention if the competitors were disgruntled because of 
actions which broke the law (as the courts have repeatedly ruled was 
in fact the case), what is more significant is Microsoft's actions 
not against its competition but against its own customers.
    Consider that under the First Amendment, I have the legal right 
to criticize my government, perhaps even harshly so, and I may even 
do so in a forum sponsored by that same government. The courts have 
interpreted this right to extend further; for instance, I may use a 
telephone and still criticize whatever company provides my telephone 
service. But I may NOT utilize Microsoft products to criticize 
Microsoft. This is not a paranoid fantasy, it is a direct reading of 
clauses in the licenses of several of their products, which 
explicitly forbid one to ``criticize or disparage Microsoft 
and/or its products and/or services.'' Indeed one license 
actually forbids the ``parody'' of Microsoft products and 
services.
    Microsoft demands that companies engaged in any joint ventures 
waive their rights to sue Microsoft for patent infringement 
``even should evidence arise that such infringement has 
occurred.'' And there are more additional examples than I have 
time to list, of Microsoft using the courts to squelch criticism and 
then thumbing its nose at the courts when they issue rulings 
Microsoft does not wish.
    We must now ask ourselves whether the interest of the people of 
the United States is served when one company not only has the power 
to behave in this manner, but actually does so, and thus far with 
impunity.
    Fourth: Microsoft's already dangerous power is increasing.
    It has been widely noted that when the Internet first began to 
become a household word, Microsoft largely ignored the whole 
phenomenon. Now that Microsoft has taken notice, their objective is 
nothing less than the total control of the Internet. During the time 
between the filing of United States v. Microsoft and today, 
Microsoft's plans to destroy Netscape (publishers of what was at the 
time overwhelmingly the most widely-used browser for the World Wide 
Web) have come to fruition, and they now face essentially no 
competition in that area.
    One has to ask why Microsoft wanted to destroy Netscape so badly 
that they would give away a competing product for free. One reason 
is that control of the web browser gives one control of the choke 
point for information and commerce on the Internet. The other reason 
is that Netscape had ambitious plans to enhance their browser and 
ultimately to ``grow the browser into an operating system of 
its own'' which would have threatened Microsoft's monopoly. 
Perhaps such a scheme would have proved beneficial to the public, 
but it was a threat to Microsoft, and like all such threats before, 
could not resist Microsoft's destructive power.
    Today Microsoft controls the web browser, and much evidence 
exists that its ultimate plan is to take control of the basic 
protocols that servers use to communicate with each other across the 
Internet itself. Once that happens they will essentially have the 
level of power that a company would have if they controlled all bank 
ATM machines, all telephones, all newspapers, and all radio and 
television stations. All access to information in any form from 
anywhere at any time would generate profit for Microsoft, and be 
subject to their approval.
    We must now ask whether this is a desirable future for a free 
people. Fifth: People like me, in the trenches, have long considered 
Microsoft dangerous.
    I could tell you so many stories. Just the jokes we tell to each 
other betray a deepening gloom about the future. Alas, I am facing a 
strict deadline for public comment and this must leave them for 
another time. Sixth: The proposed settlement of United States v. 
Microsoft is NOT sufficient.
    It contains insufficient punishment for past transgressions of 
the law, insufficient guarantees against future transgressions of 
law, NO compensation for victims of those transgressions of law, and 
insufficient remedies for the consequences of past transgressions of 
law.
    Much more needs to be said, but as the period for public comment 
is ending I must draw to a close. But I cannot urge strongly enough 
that this settlement NOT be accepted as is.
    Sincerely,
    James R. Austin
    (Should this be required by law, my full address is as follows:
    James R. Austin
    155 Watkins Mill RD
    Apt. C
    Gaithersburg, MD 20879-3336)



MTC-00033530

From: Kory Hamzeh
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:08pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please give serious consideration to the contents of: http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
    Sincerely,
    Kory Hamzeh
    West Hills, CA



MTC-00033531

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:10pm
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.

[[Page 30122]]

    Please put a stop to this travesty of justice now. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Ella B Lankford
    P.O. Box 266
    Seneca, MO 64865-0266



MTC-00033532

From: Mary E. Daudelin
To: Microsoft ATR,Mary E. Daudelin
Date: 1/27/02 9:11pm
Subject: RE: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments included in body of email, in case you don't have MS 
Office 2000 to read the attachment of my earlier e-mail.
    Sincerely,
    M. E. Daudelin
    January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    To paraphrase Mr. Glassman's comments pertaining to the 
Microsoft settlement, I also feel that AOL could better spend its 
time in further analysis of its own product (especially with regard 
to its deployment overseas) rather than in continuing to pursue this 
case. My own personal experience with AOL has led me to believe that 
full utilization of the Internet is, in fact, restricted, when using 
their application.
    As a developer of WEB applications for research, business and 
educational purposes, I have utilized a variety of browsers, 
development tools and operating systems while producing and testing 
my applications. Although I use Windows NT servers and take 
advantage of their many development tools, such as FrontPage 2002, I 
have not found that the public cannot access my applications, 
regardless of their operating system and/or browser types (with the 
exception of an occasional prototype). In fact, until recently, 
Netscape has always been my personal choice of browser as it was the 
one that introduced me fully to the Internet. And SUN's StarOffice 
product has produced many graduate-school presentations for me.
    Because Internet Explorer is so forgiving of my JavaScript 
scripting errors, I find that I often HAVE to make myself utilize 
other browsers/systems in my testing to ensure that users who do not 
use MS products/systems are not inundated with JavaScript errors 
that I have overlooked in my own code. My personal belief is that 
Microsoft has some very good programmers that pay attention to 
detail, and, as such, should not be penalized for their technical 
excellence.
    Yes, my job would be much easier if I could convince everyone on 
this planet to use Microsoft Windows OS's and IE browsers, IBM 
ThinkPad laptop computers, the same size/resolution monitor and to 
access the Internet via cable or high-speed access, however, since 
this attitude smacks of the old telecom mentality (a black rotary 
phone for everyone, by God!), and because we all have our different 
comfort levels, I will remain silent on that subject and continue to 
jump back and forth between the plethora of computers/systems/
browsers that I access in my testing.
    In closing, I feel that Microsoft should be used as an example 
of what works in our economy (little, if any, debt and innovative, 
easily accessible business solutions at a reasonable cost). Beyond 
the concessions contained in the settlement agreement, nothing more 
should be expected or required of Microsoft at this time. I 
appreciate your efforts to quickly settle this case.
    Sincerely,
    M.E. Daudelin
    File code: msu-0-return
    Electronic transmission: signature on file
----Original Message----
From: Mary E. Daudelin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Comments on the MS Case:
    See attachment.
    Sincerely,
    M.E. Daudelin



MTC-00033533

From: Jeff Prus
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:12pm
Subject: Accept the Current Microsoft Case Settlement
    Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like my opinion to be considered for the Microsoft case. 
I believe the current settlement is fair and urge you to settle this 
case now. I believe continuation of this litigation is harmful to 
both the software industry and the economy.
    By continuing to add features and functionality to Windows, 
Microsoft has advanced the PC platform while reducing the costs to 
the consumer. Furthermore, I believe that Microsoft's ability to add 
features to the operating system only creates parity with other 
firms that also incorporate new functionality within the operating 
system itself, namely Apple's OS X and various versions of Linux. I 
believe the states that continue to oppose the settlement are only 
trying to achieve a settlement windfall for Microsoft competitors 
within their states, however, at a significant cost to the high-tech 
industry and overall economy.
    That being said, I do believe that Microsoft's dominance in the 
desktop PC operating system market creates a disadvantage for 
competitors and thus warrants some restrictions in order for other 
companies to be given a chance to compete. These include the 
requirement for Microsoft to include some other companies'' 
products within Windows as an alternative to Microsoft products. 
This requirement is covered within the existing settlement. This 
continued litigation is damaging one of our countries great 
corporations and I believe a fair and equitable settlement has been 
proposed. As such, I urge you to settle this case now. The only 
winner in this continued litigation is the legal profession.
    Thanks,
    Jeff Prus
    [email protected]
    (773) 525-1969



MTC-00033534

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:17pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
January 27, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    A settlement to the antitrust suit against Microsoft has finally 
been reached, and I hope that it is implemented as soon as the 
public comment period is over with. This proposed settlement stands 
to benefit everyone involved, and best of all, allows Microsoft to 
get back to helping the economy instead of wasting valuable time and 
money in court.
    The economy started its downward spiral the day the suit against 
Microsoft was announced, and three years later we find ourselves in 
a recession. Did no one realize just how important Microsoft is to 
the economy? They provided tens of thousands of jobs to Americans 
across the country and to people around the globe. I hope this 
settlement will pave the way for the economy to get back on its 
feet, and with Microsoft agreeing to work more closely with its 
competitors, the market has to improve. I know there are many who 
worry weather Microsoft will adhere to the terms of the settlement, 
but they have no choice. An oversight committee has been set up that 
will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the settlement.
    Everything needed to improve our economy is in place. The 
settlement must now be approved in order to get the ball rolling.
    cc; Representative Maxine Waters
    Sincerely,
    Mose Tyler



MTC-00033536

From: Keith E. Folsom
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    My name is Keith Folsom. I am the Director of Systems and 
Communications
    at Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington. I have 
been a computer professional since my graduation from college with a 
Bachelor's degree in Computer Science in 1981. I have had many roles 
in the field, including Software Engineer, Programmer, Systems 
Administrator, and manager. My desire to stay current in a field I 
really enjoy convinced me to enter an evening Master's program in 
Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Washington in 
1999. I completed this program last month, graduating with a 
Master's degree.
    I am writing this letter in order to urge you to consider more 
far-reaching sanctions against Microsoft than those proposed, which 
I feel is justified in light of the conclusion that the company is a 
monopoly. It is my opinion that the sanctions as proposed will do 
little or nothing to prevent Microsoft from continuing to use their 
monopoly power to crush competition and true innovation in the 
computing industry.
    I do not believe in a government that unnecessarily interferes 
in the matters of

[[Page 30123]]

industry. Free enterprise and capitalism normally self-regulate. But 
when a company grows too large and is no longer subject to the 
normal laws of economics, a government has the duty to reign this 
company in. As I've watched Microsoft gain a strangle-hold on the 
computing industry, I've also seen my choice of products and 
solutions dwindle. It frankly scares me. And Microsoft's latest 
attempt to control the Internet with their .NET initiative convinces 
me that they have not learned any lessons from the long battle 
against the Justice Department in the anti-trust case. They are 
determined to own it all.
    Once again, I urge you to consider stronger measures against 
Microsoft, up to and including splitting the company into smaller, 
more fairly competitive units. I believe such measures are the only 
way to prevent the computing industry from sinking into a mire of 
mediocrity, with no true choice of solutions for computing problems. 
This is what monopolies do unless they are stopped. Please stop 
Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Keith Folsom
    Keith E. Folsom
    [email protected]
    Director, Systems & Communications
    [email protected]
    Pacific Lutheran University
    WWW--http://www.plu.edu/folsomke
    Tacoma, Washington
    PGP--/pgp.txt



MTC-00033537

From: Peter Hollings
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hold an advanced degree from the Sloan School of Management, 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the areas of information 
technology and finance. I have over 30 years experience in these 
fields, during which I have developed a deep understanding of the 
processes of competition and innovation in the computer software 
industry. I first became aware of Microsoft around 1982 and have 
been a constant observer of that company's business practices over 
the succeeding years. My purpose in writing is to express my 
opposition to the proposed settlement that has been reached by the 
US Department of Justice and Microsoft concerning their antitrust 
suit. Not being trained in the formalities of the legal profession, 
I am writing nevertheless in the hopes that you will take notice of 
my objections as an American citizen, affected by this settlement, 
and despite their probable formal incorrectness. I make this 
expression on my personal behalf, although I firmly believe it also 
reflects the interests of the businesses that I have presently or 
formerly been associated with in either employment or consulting 
roles. I firmly believe and respectfully request that the Court 
consider:
    1. That as a past and potential future purchaser of Microsoft 
products, and as user of computing systems generally, that no aspect 
of the proposed settlement is in my interest.
    2. That I firmly believe that approval by the Court of the 
proposed settlement would be bad for consumers, bad for business, 
bad for innovation, bad for the beneficial functioning of market 
economics, bad for constitutional rights, such as privacy and 
security, and it would materially and adversely impair the public's 
perception of government integrity.
    3. I state my belief that the proposed settlement is so 
thoroughly flawed in every aspect that I respectfully request that 
the Court reject it from further consideration.
    4. I respectfully request that the court give full consideration 
to the filing by the American Antitrust Institute captioned as 
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.
    This complaint sets forth numerous instances in which both the 
DOJ and Microsoft have failed to comply with specific disclosure 
requirements of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act 
(``Tunney Act''). Most importantly are the failure of the 
DOJ to provide an accounting of how the settlement reached is in the 
public interest and the failure of Microsoft to fully identify its 
contacts with the government relative to the settlement. I will note 
here that the public press includes numerous articles relative to 
Microsoft's lobbying activities relevant to the antitrust settlement 
decision, none of which were included as required in Microsoft's 
report in compliance of the reporting requirement. This combination 
of circumstances gives the appearance that the public institutions 
of the American people are being manipulated against their interests 
and in a concealed way.
    5. I respectfully request that the Court give full consideration 
to these circumstances identified above and fully investigate and 
correct any improprieties in the functioning of our government in 
the interest of preserving the American people's confidence in both 
the Executive and Judicial branches of our government. The proposed 
settlement is such an egregiously bad agreement and so contrary to 
the public interest that I cannot conceive that it was honestly 
arrived at.
    Thank you,
    Peter Hollings
    Atlanta, GA 30342
    [email protected]



MTC-00033538

From: James Tracy, Ph.D.
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Please settle the Microsoft Case. It seems clear to me and many 
of my friends that the settlement is in the public interest. Only 
competitors can level the specious argument that Microsoft's 
innovation is an antitrust violation. Let's compete in the market 
place rather than litigate in the courts.
    Dr. Jim Tracy



MTC-00033539

From: Kevin Bullock
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    The proposed settlement with Microsoft is woefully inadequate. 
It will not change their behavior as a corporation nor provide any 
meaningful benefit to the public interest. Please refer to Dan 
Kegel's comments at the following address: http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html
    Also please take into consideration Ralph Nader and James Love's 
comments at: http://www.cptech.org/at/ms/
rnjl2kollarkotellynov501.html
    Thank you.
    Pacem in terris / Mir / Shanti / Salaam / Heiwa
    Kevin R. Bullock



MTC-00033540

From: Margaret C Worsham
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I, Margaret C. Worsham, strongly urge the Justice Department to 
accept the Microsoft Settlement.
    The consumer interest has been well served and the time has come 
to end this costly and damaging litigation



MTC-00033542

From: Paul Shryer
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:42pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing to express my disagreement with the proposed 
settlement between US DOJ and Microsoft.
    I am a Information Technology Professional who works on a daily 
basis with Microsoft software and license agreements. There are many 
problems I have noticed with the Final Judgement proposed by the 
DOJ, I shall mention the two greatest issues I have with this 
settlement.
    1. A provision is included to ``prevent Microsoft from 
using Anti-competitive practices against OEM who load competing 
practices.'' There is a big loophole in this provision 
unfortunately. It does not prevent Microsoft from charging a set 
price to all OEMs and then providing discounts and rebates to OEMs 
that sell only Microsoft products or that help Microsoft extend its 
monopoly into additional markets. Several companies currently use 
similar agreements and programs. It would take little effort for 
Microsoft to adopt similar practices.
    2. This proposed final judgement does not seem to have any sort 
of enforcement. While it is true that the proposal calls for a three 
person panel to review the activities of Microsoft I seen nothing 
that empowers the panel to do anything more than recommend to 
Microsoft management. They do not seem to have any real power to 
overrule management and prevent Microsoft from undertaking anti-
competitive practices.
    Paul Shryer
    Network Technician
    Duluth, MN



MTC-00033543

From: Mark Hinds
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The proposed settlement fails to restore or protect competition 
in the PC OS market place. It seems to legitimize MS's monopoly and 
places far to much discretion in MS's hands. One need only apply the 
following simple test. If MS agrees to something then

[[Page 30124]]

it must be good for MS. MS has agreed to this settlement and 
therefore the settlement must be good for MS. If the settlement did 
protect and foster future competition then MS would not agree to it. 
It is simply a fact that MS will have to be ordered to do anything 
of substance to remedy its abuses. It is very disturbing that the 
DOJ has opted for expedience in place of justice and public benefit. 
With real competition the price of PC operating software would be 1/
10th of today's MS prices, and quality (i.e. robustness and 
security) would be years ahead of MS's current quality.
    MS used its PC OS dominance to extinguish Netscape. It has been 
found that this was done deliberately to protect its PC OS monopoly. 
MS must not be allowed to benefit from this illegal conduct and must 
be prevented from repeating such conduct in the future. The proposed 
settle makes no effort to deprive MS of any benefits it accrued as a 
result of illegal conduct, does nothing to mitigate the effects of 
the conduct, and makes only a sheepish effort to prevent it in the 
future.
    I strongly urge the court to reject this settlement and hold 
proper public hearings to find an effective remedy. Further, I see 
the only effective and workable remedy to be structural. It will not 
be possible to enforce conduct remedies with MS. It has not worked 
in the past and will not work in the future.
    Mark Hinds
    Concerned US Citizen
    Senior SW Engineer
    Edmonds WA 98020



MTC-00033544

From: William Usim
To: Judge Kollar-Kotelly
Date: 1/27/02 9:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly,
    As a consumer I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft 
settlement. I believe that Judge Jackson had the only remedy that 
would aid consumers.. I would prefer to purchase my computer's 
operating system separate from any applications. I would like to be 
able to select applications that I find have the features I need 
without them being included in the operating system.
    I presently run both Windows 98 and OS/2.
    Thank you,
    William Usim



MTC-00033545

From: john paulson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Greetings,
    I--oppose--the proposed settlement in the Microsoft 
anti-trust case for the following reasons:
    The Microsoft Office suite is one reason for the entrenchment of 
the Windows operating system on personal computers. The lack of 
viable non-Microsoft equivalents to MS Office is one source of that 
entrenchment.
    Document formats are descriptions of the files produced by the 
Microsoft Office suite of products (MS Word, MS Excel, MS 
Powerpoint).
    Document formats are distinct from APIs. Nowhere is there a 
requirement that Microsoft document and freely disclose the document 
formats used by their office products.
    Because the document formats are not available, developers of 
products wishing to inter-operate with or compete with those of 
Microsoft Office must reverse engineer the document format. Besides 
being time consuming, this is an error-prone process. The resulting 
products fail to work as well with the documents. In addition, 
changes made by Microsoft to those document formats when new 
versions of Microsoft products are released require non-Microsoft to 
once again perform reverse engineering. This delays the release of 
competing products, further cementing Microsoft's entrenchment in 
office productivity applications.
    THEREFORE:
    Microsoft must document the formats of files produced by their 
office productivity applications.
    Microsoft must make that documentation freely available, so that 
non-Microsoft products can read and write documents produced by 
Microsoft's office productivity applications.
    And, Microsoft must release the document format concurrently, if 
not prior to, the release of newer versions of Microsoft's office 
productivity applications.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business, 
...''
    (The above quotation is from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/
pulpit20011206.html) As that article states, Microsoft faces 
competition from open source software, such as Linux, FreeBSD and 
Samba. Microsoft should not be allowed to forbid disclosure to 
asymmetric threats to its dominance.
    THEREFORE:
    Microsoft should release the API, Documentation and 
Communications Protocols to all who ask, or make it freely available 
(by placing on their website, www.microsoft.com). This will in no 
way hinder Microsoft's ability to innovate and develop new products 
and combinations of products, but it will allow non-Microsoft 
developers to inter-operate with Microsoft products.
    Microsoft has proposed deploying many millions of dollars worth 
of computers and (Microsoft) software to (K-12) schools. This 
should be rejected out of hand. Currently, the only meaningful 
competition Microsoft has in the K-12 education marketplace is Apple 
Computer. Were Microsoft to --sell-- computers running 
Microsoft software to schools at discounts of 80 to 90%, it would be 
viewed as an anti-competitive action by a monopolist: dumping. 
Giving it away can only be worse, (mega-dumping?).
    THEREFORE:
    Microsoft should not be allowed to donate computers and 
software. If Microsoft wishes to aid schools in this wise, it may 
donate --money--and allow the educators to decide how to 
spend it on computers and software.
    Sincerely,
    John Paulson



MTC-00033546

From: Jeff Rehbein
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 27, 2002
    To Whom it May Concern:
    In accordance with the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on 
the proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case. I believe that there are many problems with the proposed 
settlement. As shown by Dan Kegel's open letter (http://
www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html), there are so many holes in the 
settlement that it is essentially useless. However, I will focus my 
comments on a specific group of actions by Microsoft that affect my 
work directly.
    I work as a Macintosh game developer. My work entails both 
porting games originally written for the Microsoft Windows platform 
to run on the Macintosh platform, and writing original games for the 
Macintosh platform. In the following paragraphs, I will show how 
Microsoft's anticompetitive actions have harmed (and are continuing 
to harm) me, my company's customers, and the customers of virtually 
all developers of games for the Macintosh.
    In 1992, OpenGL was introduced as an open standard application 
programming interface (API) for 2D and 3D graphics. Over the years, 
it has gained wide adoption by operating system vendors (OSV) and 
graphics sub-systems hardware vendors (GSHV). Seeing that adopting 
OpenGL would increase the number of games available for the Windows 
platform, Microsoft adopted it. However, Microsoft only adopted it 
because it didn't have a competing product.
    As Microsoft has done time and time again, it quickly turned out 
it's own version of someone else's innovation. In this case (as in 
most cases), it's version (Direct3D) was nowhere near as good as the 
original. However, Microsoft tied it to Windows (still on the same 
pattern) and to its development environment and some developers used 
it. Recently, Direct3D has became good enough to compete with 
OpenGL. So what did Microsoft do? It removed OpenGL support from 
Windows XP before release--support that was already there. 
OpenGL can still be used, but the support has to be added by each 
GSHV, seriously complicating the situation.
    Removal of OpenGL support from Windows harms several groups of 
people:
    1. Developers who know and wish to use OpenGL in a Windows 
application.
    2. Developers who want to write 3D (and 2D) applications that 
can be compiled for Windows and other operating systems from one 
codebase.
    3. Developers who port applications originally written for 
Windows to run on other operating system (the original application 
may have been written with

[[Page 30125]]

OpenGL under different circumstances, making it far easier to port)
    4. In the long run, other OSVs that depend on OpenGL will likely 
be harmed. This is because usage of OpenGL will drop off, which will 
lead to a stagnation in the OpenGL standard.
    As if removing OpenGL support from Windows wasn't enough, 
Microsoft recently purchased key patents from Silicon Graphics, Inc. 
that may give it even more ammunition against the competing, open 
standard. I can't say for sure what Microsoft will do with this new 
power, but given its past history I think it's a sure bet that it 
will be bad for OpenGL, and by extension, bad for developers and 
consumers. One company should not be able to so negatively affect an 
open standard. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does nothing 
to prevent this sort of activity. Microsoft also hurts all 
developers who port Windows games to the Macintosh by keeping all 
DirectX APIs usable on Windows alone. Microsof routinely changes the 
API calls so that developers can't make a ``glue library'' 
(a glue library is used to easily convert calls to one API to calls 
to different API) that can keep being used in each new project. 
There is no need to so routinely change the actual interface calls 
of APIs. Other OSVs do everything they can to keep those calls the 
consistent. Doing otherwise would break compatibility and drive away 
developers. Only a company with a monopoly could do this and 
survive.
    One DirectX API in particular gives port developers 
trouble--DirectPlay. DirectPlay is an API that makes it 
relatively easy to add networking features to a game. Because of the 
lack of documentation of the internal message structure, any port of 
a game originally written using DirectPlay cannot communicate with 
the original version. This relegates users of the ported version to 
a second-class status. Although technically possible to reverse-
engineer the protocol, Microsoft actively thwarts such attempts. The 
one known instance where the protocol was reverse-engineered and 
used in a product (which took 6 months), Microsoft promptly 
overhauled the protocol and released a new version which completely 
broke the compatibility.
    Microsoft's actions with the DirectX API serve solely to 
strengthen the applications barrier-to-entry, even at the expense of 
their own developers. Unfortunately, the proposed settlement does 
absolutely nothing to alleviate this or any problems concerning this 
barrier. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that there is no 
remedy for the above problems short of separating the OS business 
from the rest of Microsoft. As show in the previous reference to Dan 
Kegel's open letter and in my own, the proposed settlement will do 
little to limit Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior. It would be a 
grievous waste of taxpayer money if this settlement was the end 
result of the case. I implore you to reconsider this course of 
action.
    Thank you for your time in considering this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey Rehbein Macintosh Games Developer



MTC-00033547

From: paul podnar
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:56pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I do not believe that the proposed remedies represent what is in 
the best interest of the people or the computer industry. My company 
has been damaged by the illegal workings of Microsoft and so have 
many others in the world.
    The entire Apple computer platform and Motorola has been damaged 
by the monopolistic practices and pressure put on Apple to stop 
certain developments. Netscape went from a majority player in the 
browser field to a minority player and almost bankrupt. Java was 
corrupted by the efforts of Microsofts J++ development and not 
Microsoft is after the internet with their .Net strategy which was 
really built upon Netscapes efforts.
    Microsofts efforts also misrepresent the stability and security 
of all their operating systems and application programs. Many 
individuals and businesses have been damaged due to lost work and 
downtime caused by the low quality standards of the Microsoft 
software. My remedies would include:
    1. A payment to Netscape/AOL for the market stolen by Microsofts 
free browser. This might be one half of current estimated Internet 
explorer users times about 29 dollars for the people that would have 
purchased a Netscape product.
    2. A major free update of Windows 98 and the Office program 
which would run on the computers purchased by businesses in the 1998 
year which would work as advertised and be much more stabile.
    3. A payment made to Sun for damages done to the JAVA platform
    4. A payment made to Apple computer for the damage to the 
internal development of software which is known in the industry 
including Quicktime and Apple Works.
    5. The inclusion of Quicktime as the default Windows Media 
Player/ Authoring medium to generally further the multimedia 
capabilities of millions of Windows users.
    6. The inclusion of firewire support on all Windows desktops to 
further the advance of this quality high speed Apple bus technology.
    7. Finally, a public admission of guilt from Bill Gates as to 
his involvement in the above matters and a media broadcast of the 
trial findings and testimonies key industry and Microsoft personnel. 
I would find the truth of this case much more interesting than the 
OJ Simpson trial and much more valuable to the industry, the 
populace and history.
    Thank you for this forum to come forward and for a small part in 
the process of Justice.
    Paul j. Podnar
    President
    Accommodata Corporation



MTC-00033548

From: Kent Rosenkoetter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:58pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    As a graduate student in computer science (University of North 
Carolina--Chapel Hill) I cannot help but be aware of the 
Microsoft anti-trust case. And while I believe it to be one of the 
most important cases for the computer industry in years, I tend to 
avoid dwelling on it because all I can feel is frustration. 
Microsoft has:
    1. Used their OS monopoly and OEM agreements to prevent any 
computer manufacturer from selling dual-boot systems, effectively 
killing BeOS and incredibly slowing the spread of other OSes, 
particularly Free Software and Open Source OSes.
    2. Used their Windows OS to spread Internet Explorer and Outlook 
Express, making the entire world suceptible to hundreds of viruses 
that do not work on any other browser/email client. This costs 
American business alone billions of dollars every year.
    3. Many other similarly disgusting actions I do not need to list 
because I know many of my colleagues have already done so in detail.
    My frustration stems from the proposed settlement. First, that 
the breakup of Microsoft did not take place. Though I do not believe 
a mere two pieces would have been sufficient, it would at least have 
shown the public that the government is willing to mete out some 
serious punishment for such flagrantly illegal behavior. Second, 
that such a puny settlement would be proposed and even endorsed by 
members of the government. The settlement does not adequately 
restrict MS's future behavior, it leaves huge loopholes for 
exploitation, and it for the most part neglects the concept of 
compensation. While I believe the settlement may have been 
negotiated in good faith by the prosecutors, the final agreement 
does not account for the severity of the crimes or for MS's habit of 
exploitation and arrogance.
    Actually, I do not believe that any settlement negotiated with 
Microsoft will be in the public interest. Microsoft's lawyers will 
not agree to anything that will seriously curtail MS's activities, 
and MS's activities are entirely centered around control of all 
aspects of computing. No, that is not an overzealous fanatical 
statement. That is a direct extrapolation of the past trends that 
led to MS's current monopolies in operating systems, office 
software, and web browsers, extended to current plans like .NET and 
subscription-based software licensing. Any final judgement capable 
of effectively affecting Microsoft will never be agreed to by 
Microsoft.
    This email is meant to express extreme displeasure with the 
proposed settlement. It is not meant to offer possible alterations 
for the reason above. Though my original thought when I learned of 
the breakup Judge Jackson ordered was ``Three companies. 
Operating Systems, Applications, and Web Services.'' It seems 
that won't happen now. If you truly want an effective solution, 
force Microsoft to pay damages to every person and business that is 
a victim of a Microsoft-only virus. That will not eliminate their 
monopolies or promote competition for the future, but it will 
certainly take away their financial gain from their illegally 
acquired monopolies. It will also make the millions that have been 
victims of the serious

[[Page 30126]]

problems in Microsoft software feel a little better.
    Kent Rosenkoetter
    Graduate Student
    University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill



MTC-00033549

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    A single minded focus of a great company like Microsoft--to 
simplify the computing experience, and making IT affordable to a 
common man--has really been a path breaking achievement of the 
20th century. Any adverse judgement will only harm the end-consumer, 
who will be forced to cough up money for the most essential of 
features & innovations. Growth & well-being of Microsoft is 
essential to foster competition and health of IT industry not only 
in the U.S., but of the economy world-wide.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033551

From: James Carter
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    DOJ,
    The proposed settlement is NOT in the publich interest.., it is 
ineffective and has large loopholes.
    My name is James Michael Carter. I am a real person working in 
the computer industry (programmer) who can tell story after story of 
microsoft abuses. I have followed and complained about Microsoft 
abuses since the early 90's (before much of their behavior was 
successfully brought to the attention of anti-trust enforcers). 
(real person in contrast to Microsoft's fraudulant 
``astroturf'' fake citizen's responses which have been at 
least several times caught!) I am very much against the proposed 
settlement. It is not in the public interest. As a start, I advocate 
the changes proposed at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/remedy2.html 
with further resources at: http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ Also I echo 
Ralph Nader's criticisms: http://www.cptech.org/at/at/
rnj12kollarkotellynov501.html
    To highlight some general problems, there are not protections 
for Non-MS operating systems to get hold of technical 
interoperability details and API's in order to build compatible and/
or competing products and systems. Further, MS should not be allowed 
to buy technology companies.., they absorb and kill off competition 
and gain beach-heads ensuring the next big thing will be in their 
controls--leveraged off their existing stranglehold and $36 
billion bank account. Profits they did not mine from the ground, but 
taken off the backs of consumers!! Microsoft yells how all they want 
to do is innovate and compete * * * yet their behaviour 
and snubbing of the law and our courts show their words are as 
trustworthy as their products'' security. Make MS publish any 
and ALL API's, protocols, and file formats 3 months before any 
distribution so others may compete with them (as they profess to 
want).
    Prevent them from buying any other companies (to make them 
compete and --innovate as they claim they want to do. Make them 
publish all their source code.
    Microsoft wants to innovate and --compete-- Well then 
make them do exactly that * * * --Microsoft's history 
shows they do all to NOT have to compete* * * So, let's 
finally make them do what they CLAIM is all they want to do 
* * * The public interest requires it.
    I also think microsoft should be broken up by product lines. 
Structural remedies are often only remedy to fix where company shows 
in its history to ignore consent decrees and have a penchant for not 
complying and for litigating (delaying until the damage is already 
done) (years and years now* * *).
    I am a modestly self-employed programmer, who has personally 
suffered and seen the abuses at the hands of Microsoft. Please don't 
let the average folks down.
    I would help you with new remedies or evaluation of such in any 
way I can.
    sincerely,
    James Carter
    221 Hosea Ave. Apt. 2
    Cincinnati, Ohio 45220



MTC-00033551--0002

    (513) 559-9701
    [email protected]
    I attach for completeness the kegal analysis remedy fixes (which 
I endorse and propose as well): http://www.kegel.com/remedy/
remedy2.html
    On the Proposed Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft
Contents
Introduction
Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'', 
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to 
Entry?
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?
Strengthening the PFJ
Correcting the PFJ's definitions
Release of Information
Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs
Summary

Introduction

    As a software engineer with 20 years'' experience 
developing software for Unix, Windows, Macintosh, and Linux, I'd 
like to comment on the Proposed

Final Judgment in United States v. Microsoft.

    According to the Court of Appeals 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).
    Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to agree; he called the 
proposed settlement ``strong and historic'', said that it 
would end ``Microsoft's unlawful conduct,'' and said 
``With the proposed settlement being announced today, the 
Department of Justice has fully and completely addressed the anti-
competitive conduct outlined by the Court of Appeals against 
Microsoft.''
    Yet the Proposed Final Judgment allows many exclusionary 
practices to continue, and does not take any direct measures to 
reduce the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by new entrants to 
the market. The Court of Appeals affirmed 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 (p. 15).
    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.
    The fruits of Microsoft's statutory violation include a 
strengthened Applications Barrier to Entry and weakened competition 
in the Intel-compatible operating system market; thus the Final 
Judgment must find a direct way of reducing the Applications Barrier 
to Entry, and of increasing such competition.
    In the following sections I outline the basic intent of the 
proposed final judgment, point out areas where the intent and the 
implementation appear to fall short, and propose amendments to the 
Proposed Final Judgment (or PFJ) to address these concerns.
    Please note that this document is still evolving. Feedback is 
welcome; to comment on this document, please join the mailing list 
at groups.yahoo.com/group/ms-remedy, or email me directly at dank-
[email protected].

Understanding the Proposed Final Judgment

In crafting the Final Judgment, the judge will face the following 
questions:
How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware'', 
and ``Windows OS'' be defined?
How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to 
Entry?
How should the Final Judgment be enforced?
What information needs to be released to ISVs to encourage 
competition, and under what terms?
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
Which practices towards large users should be prohibited?
Which practices towards end users should be prohibited?
    Here is a very rough summary which paraphrases provisions III.A 
through III.J and VI. of the Proposed Final Judgment to give

[[Page 30127]]

some idea of how the PFJ proposes to answer those questions:

PFJ Section III: Prohibited Conduct

    Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs who support 
competitors to Windows, Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), or Outlook 
Express (0E). Microsoft will publish the wholesale prices it charges 
the top 20 OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) for Windows.
    Microsoft will allow OEMs to customize the Windows menus, 
desktop, and boot sequence, and will allow the use of non-Microsoft 
bootloaders. Microsoft will publish on MSDN (the Microsoft Developer 
Network) the APIs used by IE, MJ, WMP, WM, and 0E, so that competing 
web browsers, media players, and email clients can plug in properly 
to Windows. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms the network 
protocols needed for non-Microsoft applications or operating systems 
to connect to Windows servers.
    Microsoft will not force business partners to refrain from 
supporting competitors to Windows, IE, MJ, WMP, WM, or 0E. (Roughly 
same as F above.)
    Microsoft will let users and OEMs remove icons for IE, MJ, WMP, 
WM, and 0E, and let them designate competing products to be used 
instead. Microsoft will license on reasonable terms any intellectual 
property rights needed for other companies to take advantage of the 
terms of this settlement.
    This agreement lets Microsoft keep secret anything having to do 
with security or copy protection.

PFJ Section VI: Definitions

    ``API'' (Application Programming Interface) is defined 
as only the interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft 
Windows, excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs. 
``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is defined as Internet 
Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), Windows Media Player (WMP), 
Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook Express (OE). ``Windows 
Operating System Product'' is defined as Windows 2000 
Professional, Windows XP Home, and Windows XP Professional.
    The agreement can be summed up in one breath as follows: 
Microsoft agrees to compete somewhat less vigorously, and to let 
competitors interoperate with Windows in exchange for royalty 
payments. Considering all of the above, one should read the detailed 
terms of the Proposed Final Judgment, and ask one final question:

Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public interest?

In the sections below, I'll look in more detail at how the PFJ deals 
with the above questions.

    How should terms like ``API'', ``Middleware, and 
``Windows OS'' be defined?
    The definitions of various terms in Part VI of the PFJ differ 
from the definitions in the Findings of Fact and in common usage, 
apparently to Microsoft's benefit. Here are some examples:

Definition A: ``API''

    The Findings of Fact (? 2) define ``API'' to mean the 
interfaces between application programs and the operating system. 
However, the PFJ's Definition A defines it to mean only the 
interfaces between Microsoft Middleware and Microsoft Windows, 
excluding Windows APIs used by other application programs. For 
instance, the PFJ's definition of API might omit important APIs such 
as the Microsoft Installer APIs which are used by installer programs 
to install software on Windows.

Definition J: ``Microsoft Middleware''

    The Findings of Fact (? 28) define ``middleware'' to 
mean application software that itself presents a set of APIs which 
allow users to write new applications without reference to the 
underlying operating system. Definition J defines it in a much more 
restrictive way, and allows Microsoft to exclude any software from 
being covered by the definition in two ways:
    By changing product version numbers. For example, if the next 
version of Internet Explorer were named ``7.0.0'' instead 
of ``7'' or ``7.0'', it would not be deemed 
Microsoft Middleware by the PFJ.
    By changing how Microsoft distributes Windows or its middleware. 
For example, if Microsoft introduced a version of Windows which was 
only available via the Windows Update service, then nothing in that 
version of Windows would be considered Microsoft Middleware, 
regardless of whether Microsoft added it initially or in a later 
update. This is analogous to the loophole in the 1995 consent decree 
that allowed Microsoft to bundle its browser by integrating it into 
the operating system.

Definition K: ``Microsoft Middleware Product''

    Definition K defines ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' 
to mean essentially Internet Explorer (IE), Microsoft Java (MJ), 
Windows Media Player (WMP), Windows Messenger (WM), and Outlook 
Express (OE). The inclusion of Microsoft Java and not Microsoft.NET 
is questionable; Microsoft has essentially designated Microsoft.NET 
and C# as the successors to Java, so on that basis one would 
expect Microsoft.NET to be included in the definition.
    The inclusion of Outlook Express and not Outlook is 
questionable, as Outlook (different and more powerful than Outlook 
Express) is a more important product in business, and fits the 
definition of middleware better than Outlook Express.
    The exclusion of Microsoft Office is questionable, as many 
components of Microsoft Office fit the Finding of Fact's definition 
of middleware. For instance, there is an active market in software 
written to run on top of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Word, and 
many applications are developed for Microsoft Access by people who 
have no knowledge of Windows APIs.

    Definition U: ``Windows Operating System Product''
    Microsoft's monopoly is on Intel-compatible operating systems. 
Yet the PFJ in definition U defines a ``Windows Operating 
System Product'' to mean only Windows 2000 Professional, 
Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, and their successors. This 
purposely excludes the Intel-compatible operating systems Windows XP 
Tablet PC Edition and Windows CE; many applications written to the 
Win32 APIs can run unchanged on Windows 2000, Windows XP Tablet PC 
Edition, and Windows CE, and with minor recompilation, can also be 
run on Pocket PC. Microsoft even proclaims at www.microsoft.com/
windowsxp/tabletpc/tabletpcqanda.asp: ``The Tablet PC is the 
next-generation mobile business PC, and it will be available from 
leading computer makers in the second half of 2002. The Tablet PC 
runs the Microsoft Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and features the 
capabilities of current business laptops, including attached or 
detachable keyboards and the ability to run Windows-based 
applications.'' and Pocket PC: Powered by Windows
    Microsoft is clearly pushing Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and 
Pocket PC in places (e.g. portable computers used by businessmen) 
currently served by Windows XP Home Edition, and thus appears to be 
trying to evade the Final Judgment's provisions. This is but one 
example of how Microsoft can evade the provisions of the Final 
Judgment by shifting its efforts away from the Operating Systems 
listed in Definition U and towards Windows XP Tablet Edition, 
Windows CE, Pocket PC, X-Box, or some other Microsoft Operating 
System that can run Windows applications.

How should the Final Judgment erode the Applications Barrier to Entry?

    The PFJ tries to erode the Applications Barrier to Entry in two 
ways: By forbidding retaliation against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs who 
support or develop alternatives to Windows.
    By taking various measures to ensure that Windows allows the use 
of non-Microsoft middleware.
    A third option not provided by the PFJ would be to make sure 
that Microsoft raises no artificial barriers against non-Microsoft 
operating systems which implement the APIs needed to run application 
programs written for Windows. The Findings of Fact (?52) considered 
the possibility that competing operating systems could implement the 
Windows APIs and thereby directly run software written for Windows 
as a way of circumventing the Applications Barrier to Entry. This is 
in fact the route being taken by the Linux operating system, which 
includes middleware (named WINE) that can run many Windows programs.
    By not providing some aid for ISVs engaged in making Windows-
compatible operating systems, the PFJ is missing a key opportunity 
to encourage competition in the Intel-compatible operating system 
market. Worse yet, the PFJ itself, in sections III.D. and III.E., 
restricts information released by those sections to be used 
``for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product''. This prohibits ISVs from using the 
information for the purpose of writing operating systems that 
interoperate with Windows programs.

How should the Final Judgment be enforced?

    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism. It

[[Page 30128]]

does provide for the creation of a Technical Committee with 
investigative powers, but appears to leave all actual enforcement to 
the legal system.
    What information needs to'' be released to ISVs to 
encourage competition, and under what terms?
    The PFJ provides for increased disclosure of technical 
information to ISVs, but these provisions are flawed in several 
ways:
    1. The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements Section III.H.3. of the PFJ requires vendors of 
competing middleware to meet ``reasonable technical 
requirements'' seven months before new releases of Windows, yet 
it does not require Microsoft to disclose those requirements in 
advance. This allows Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    2. API documentation is released too late to help ISVs
    Section III.D. of the PFJ requires Microsoft to release via MSDN 
or similar means the documentation for the APIs used by Microsoft 
Middleware Products to interoperate with Windows; release would be 
required at the time of the final beta test of the covered 
middleware, and whenever a new version of Windows is sent to 150,000 
beta testers. But this information would almost certainly not be 
released in time for competing middleware vendors to adapt their 
products to meet the requirements of section III.H.3, which states 
that competing middleware can be locked out if it fails to meet 
unspecified technical requirements seven months before the final 
beta test of a new version of Windows.
    3. Many important APIs would remain undocumented
    The PFJ's overly narrow definitions of ``Microsoft 
Middleware Product'' and ``API'' means that Section 
III.D.'s requirement to release information about Windows interfaces 
would not cover many important interfaces.
    4. Unreasonable Restrictions are Placed on the Use of the 
Released Documentation ISVs writing competing operating systems as 
outlined in Findings of Fact (?52) sometimes have difficulty 
understanding various undocumented Windows APIs. The information 
released under section III.D. of the PFJ would aid those 
ISVs--except that the PFJ disallows this use of the 
information. Worse yet, to avoid running afoul of the PFJ, ISVs 
might need to divide up their engineers into two groups: those who 
refer to MSDN and work on Windows-only applications; and those who 
cannot refer to MSDN because they work on applications which also 
run on non-Microsoft operating systems. This would constitute 
retaliation against ISVs who support competing operating systems.
    5. File Formats Remain Undocumented No part of the PFJ obligates 
Microsoft to release any information about file formats, even though 
undocumented Microsoft file formats form part of the Applications 
Barrier to Entry (see ``Findings of Fact'' ?20 and ? 39).
    6. Patents covering the Windows APIs remain undisclosed
    Section III.I of the PFJ requires Microsoft to offer to license 
certain intellectual property rights, but it does nothing to require 
Microsoft to clearly announce which of its many software patents 
protect the Windows APIs (cf. current practice at the World Wide Web 
Consortium, http://www.w3.org/TR/patent-practice). This leaves 
Windows-compatible operating systems in an uncertain state: are 
they, or are they not infringing on Microsoft software patents? This 
can scare away potential users, as illustrated by this report from 
Codeweavers, Inc.: When selecting a method of porting a major 
application to Linux, one prospect of mine was comparing Wine [a 
competing implementation of some of the Windows APIs] and a toolkit 
called ``MainWin''. MainWin is made by Mainsoft, and 
Mainsoft licenses its software from Microsoft. However, this 
customer elected to go with the Mainsoft option instead. I was told 
that one of the key decision making factors was that Mainsoft 
representatives had stated that Microsoft had certain critical 
patents that Wine was violating. My customer could not risk crossing 
Microsoft, and declined to use Wine. I didn't even have a chance to 
determine which patents were supposedly violated; nor to disprove 
the validity of this claim.
    The PFJ, by allowing this unclear legal situation to continue, 
is inhibiting the market acceptance of competing operating systems. 
Which practices towards OEMs should be prohibited?
    The PFJ prohibits certain behaviors by Microsoft towards OEMs, 
but curiously allows the following exclusionary practices:
    Section III.A.2. allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM 
that ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating 
System but no Microsoft operating system.
    Section III.B. requires Microsoft to license Windows on uniform 
terms and at published prices to the top 20 OEMS, but says nothing 
about smaller OEMs. This leaves Microsoft free to retaliate against 
smaller OEMs, including important regional ``white box'' 
OEMs, if they offer competing products.--
    Section III.B. also allows Microsoft to offer unspecified Market 
Development Allowances--in effect, discounts--to OEMs. For 
instance, Microsoft could offer discounts on Windows to OEMs based 
on the number of copies of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems 
sold by that OEM. In effect, this allows Microsoft to leverage its 
monopoly on Intel-compatible operating systems to increase its 
market share in other areas, such as office software or ARM-
compatible operating systems.
    By allowing these practices, the PFJ is encouraging Microsoft to 
extend its monopoly in Intel-compatible operating systems, and to 
leverage it into new areas.
    Which practices towards ISVs should be prohibited?
    Sections III.F. and III.G. of the PFJ prohibit certain 
exclusionary licensing practices by Microsoft towards ISVs.
    However, Microsoft uses other exclusionary licensing practices, 
none of which are mentioned in the PFJ. Several of Microsoft's 
products'' licenses prohibit the products'' use with 
popular non-Microsoft middleware and operating systems. Two examples 
are given below.
    1. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who ship Open Source or 
Free Software applications
    The Microsoft Windows Media Encoder 7.1 SDK EULA states ... you 
shall not distribute the REDISTRIBUTABLE COMPONENT in conjunction 
with any Publicly Available Software. ``Publicly Available 
Software'' means each of (i) any software that contains, or is 
derived in any manner (in whole or in part) from, any software that 
is distributed as free software, open source software (e.g. Linux) 
or similar licensing or distribution models ... Publicly Available 
Software includes, without limitation, software licensed or 
distributed under any of the following licenses or distribution 
models, or licenses or distribution models similar to any of the 
following: GNU's General Public License (GPL) or Lesser/Library GPL 
(LGPL); The Artistic License (e.g., PERL); the Mozilla Public 
License; the Netscape Public License; the Sun Community Source 
License (SCSL); ...
    Many Windows APIs, including Media Encoder, are shipped by 
Microsoft as add-on SDKs with associated redistributable components. 
Applications that wish to use them must include the add-ons, even 
though they might later become a standard part of Windows. Microsoft 
often provides those SDKs under End User License Agreements (EULAs) 
prohibiting their use with Open Source or Free Software 
applications. This harms ISVs who choose to distribute their 
applications under Open Source or Free Software licenses; they must 
hope that the enduser has a sufficiently up-to-date version of the 
addon API installed, which is often not the case. Applications 
potentially harmed by this kind of EULA include the competing 
middleware product Netscape 6 and the competing office suite 
StarOffice; these EULAs thus can cause support problems for, and 
discourage the use of, competing middleware and office suites.
    Additionally, since Open Source or Free Software applications 
tend to also run on non-Microsoft operating systems, any resulting 
loss of market share by Open Source or Free Software applications 
indirectly harms competing operating systems.
    2. Microsoft discriminates against ISVs who target Windows-
compatible competing Operating Systems
    The Microsoft Platform SDK, together with Microsoft Visual C++, 
is the primary toolkit used by ISVs to create Windows-compatible 
applications. The Microsoft Platform SDK EULA says: 
``Distribution Terms. You may reproduce and distribute ... the 
Redistributable Components... provided that (a) you distribute the 
Redistributable Components only in conjunction with and as a part of 
your Application solely for use with a Microsoft Operating System 
Product...''
    This makes it illegal to run many programs built with Visual C++ 
on Windows-compatible competing operating systems.
    By allowing these exclusionary behaviors, the PFJ is 
contributing to the Applications Barrier to Entry faced by competing 
operating systems. Which practices towards large users should be 
prohibited?
    The PFJ places restrictions on how Microsoft licenses its 
products to OEMs, but

[[Page 30129]]

not on how it licenses products to large users such as corporations, 
universities, or state and local governments, collectively referred 
to as ``enterprises''. Yet enterprise license agreements 
often resemble the per-processor licenses which were prohibited by 
the 1994 consent decree in the earlier US v. Microsoft antitrust 
case, in that a fee is charged for each desktop or portable computer 
which could run a Microsoft operating system, regardless of whether 
any Microsoft software is actually installed on the affected 
computer. These agreements are anticompetitive because they remove 
any financial incentive for individuals or departments to run non-
Microsoft software. Which practices towards end users should be 
prohibited?
    Microsoft has used both restrictive licenses and intentional 
incompatibilities to discourage users from running Windows 
applications on Windows-compatible competing operating systems. Two 
examples are given below.
    1. Microsoft uses license terms which prohibit the use of 
Windows-compatible competing operating systems MSNBC (a subsidiary 
of Microsoft) offers software called NewsAlert. Its EULA states 
``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install and use 
copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly 
licensed copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE 
PRODUCT was designed [e.g., Microsoft Windows(r) 95; Microsoft 
Windows NT(r), Microsoft Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.] .... ``
    Only the Windows version appears to be available for download. 
Users who run competing operating systems (such as Linux) which can 
run some Windows programs might wish to run the Windows version of 
NewsAlert, but the EULA prohibits this.
    MSNBC has a valid interest in prohibiting use of pirated copies 
of operating systems, but much narrower language could achieve the 
same protective effect with less anticompetitive impact. For 
instance, ``MSNBC Interactive grants you the right to install 
and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running 
validly licensed copies of Microsoft Windows or compatible operating 
system.''
    2. Microsoft created intentional incompatibilities in Windows 
3.1 to discourage the use of non-Microsoft operating systems An 
episode from the 1996 Caldera v. Microsoft antitrust lawsuit 
illustrates how Microsoft has used technical means 
anticompetitively. Microsoft's original operating system was called 
MS-DOS. Programs used the DOS API to call up the services of the 
operating system. Digital Research offered a competing operating 
system, DR-DOS, that also implemented the DOS API, and could run 
programs written for MS-DOS.
    Windows 3.1 and earlier were not operating systems per se, but 
rather middleware that used the DOS API to interoperate with the 
operating system. Microsoft was concerned with the competitive 
threat posed by DR-DOS, and added code to beta copies of Windows 3.1 
so it would display spurious and misleading error messages when run 
on DR-DOS. Digital Research's successor company, Caldera, brought a 
private antitrust suit against Microsoft in 1996. (See the original 
complaint, and Caldera's consolidated response to Microsoft's 
motions for partial summary judgment.) The judge in the case ruled 
that ``Caldera has presented sufficient evidence that the 
incompatibilities alleged were part of an anticompetitive scheme by 
Microsoft.'' That case was settled out of court in 1999, and no 
court has fully explored the alleged conduct.
    The concern here is that, as competing operating systems emerge 
which are able to run Windows applications, Microsoft might try to 
sabotage Windows applications, middleware, and development tools so 
that-they cannot run on non-Microsoft operating systems, just as 
they did earlier with Windows 3.1.
    The PFJ as currently written does nothing to prohibit these 
kinds of restrictive licenses and intentional incompatibilities, and 
thus encourages Microsoft to use these techniques to enhance the 
Applications Barrier to Entry, and harming those consumers who use 
non-Microsoft operating systems and wish to use Microsoft 
applications software. Is the Proposed Final Judgment in the public 
interest?
    The problems identified above with the Proposed Final Judgment 
can be summarized as follows:
    The PFJ doesn't take into account Windows-compatible competing 
operating systems Microsoft increases the Applications Barrier to 
Entry by using restrictive license terms and intentional 
incompatibilities. Yet the PFJ fails to prohibit this, and even 
contributes to this part of the Applications Barrier to Entry.
    The PFJ Contains Misleading and Overly Narrow Definitions and 
Provisions The PFJ supposedly makes Microsoft publish its secret 
APIs, but it defines ``API'' so narrowly that many 
important APIs are not covered. The PFJ supposedly allows users to 
replace Microsoft Middleware with competing middleware, but it 
defines ``Microsoft Middleware'' so narrowly that the next 
version of Windows might not be covered at all.
    The PFJ allows users to replace Microsoft Java with a 
competitor's product--but Microsoft is replacing Java with 
.NET. The PFJ should therefore allow users to replace Microsoft.NET 
with competing middleware. The PFJ supposedly applies to 
``Windows'', but it defines that term so narrowly that it 
doesn't cover Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, Pocket PC, 
or the X-Box--operating systems that all use the Win32 API and 
are advertised as being ``Windows Powered''.
    The PFJ fails to require advance notice of technical 
requirements, allowing Microsoft to bypass all competing middleware 
simply by changing the requirements shortly before the deadline, and 
not informing ISVs.
    The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API documentation to ISVs 
so they can create compatible middleware--but only after the 
deadline for the ISVs to demonstrate that their middleware is 
compatible. The PFJ requires Microsoft to release API 
documentation--but prohibits competitors from using this 
documentation to help make their operating systems compatible with 
Windows.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to release documentation 
about the format of Microsoft Office documents.
    The PFJ does not require Microsoft to list which software 
patents protect the Windows APIs. This leaves Windows-compatible 
operating systems in an uncertain state: are they, or are they not 
infringing on Microsoft software patents? This can scare away 
potential users.
    The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive License Terms 
currently used by Microsoft Microsoft currently uses restrictive 
licensing terms to keep Open Source or Free Software apps from 
running on Windows. Microsoft currently uses restrictive licensing 
terms to keep Windows apps from running on competing operating 
systems. Microsoft's enterprise license agreements (used by large 
companies, state governments, and universities) charge by the number 
of computers which could run a Microsoft operating system--even 
for computers running Linux. (Similar licenses to OEMs were once 
banned by the 1994 consent decree.) The PFJ Fails to Prohibit 
Intentional Incompatibilities Historically Used by Microsoft 
Microsoft has in the past inserted intentional incompatibilities in 
its applications to keep them from running on competing operating 
systems. The PFJ Fails to Prohibit Anticompetitive Practices Towards 
OEMs The PFJ allows Microsoft to retaliate against any OEM that 
ships Personal Computers containing a competing Operating System but 
no Microsoft operating system.
    The PFJ allows Microsoft to discriminate against small 
OEMs--including regional ``white box'' OEMs which are 
historically the most willing to install competing operating 
systems--who ship competing software. The PFJ allows Microsoft 
to offer discounts on Windows (MDAs) to OEMs based on criteria like 
sales of Microsoft Office or Pocket PC systems. This allows 
Microsoft to leverage its monopoly on Intel-compatible operating 
systems to increase its market share in other areas.
    The PFJ as currently written appears to lack an effective 
enforcement mechanism.
    Considering these problems, one must conclude that the Proposed 
Final Judgment as written allows and encourages significant 
anticompetitive practices to continue, and would delay the emergence 
of competing Windows-compatible operating systems. Therefore, the 
Proposed Final Judgment is not in the public interest, and should 
not be adopted without addressing these issues.

Strengthening the PFJ

    The above discussion shows that the PFJ does not satisfy the 
Court of Appeals'' mandate. Some of the plaintiff States have 
proposed an alternate settlement which fixes many of the problems 
identified above. The States'' proposal is quite different from 
the PFJ as a whole, but it contains many elements which are similar 
to elements of the PFJ, with small yet crucial changes.
    In the sections below, I suggest amendments to the PFJ that 
attempt to resolve some of the demonstrated problems (time pressure 
has prevented anything like a complete list of amendments). When

[[Page 30130]]

discussing amendments, PFJ text is shown indented; removed text in 
shown in [bracketed strikeout], and new text in bold italics.

Correcting the PFJ's definitions

    Definition A should be amended to read
    A. ``Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) ``means 
the interfaces, including any associated callback interfaces, that 
[Microsoft Middleware running] Popular Windows Applications running 
or being installed on a Windows Operating System Product [uses] use 
to call upon that Windows Operating System Product in order to 
obtain any services from that Windows Operating System Product.
    Definition U should be amended to read
    U. ``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. ] any software or firmware code 
distributed commercially by Microsoft that is capable of executing 
any nontrivial subset of the Win32 APIs, including without exclusion 
Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Home, Windows XP Professional, 
Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Windows CE, PocketPC 2002, and 
successors to the foregoing, including the products currently code 
named ``Longhorn'' and ``Blackcomb'' and their 
successors, including upgrades, bug fixes, service packs, etc. Four 
new definitions should be added:
    V. ``Popular Windows Applications'' shall be defined 
as as the top 10 selling applications as reported by NPD Intelect 
Market Tracking in each of the categories Business, Education, 
Finance, Games, Personal Productivity, and Reference, plus all 
Microsoft Middleware Products.
    W. ``Essential Windows API Patents'' shall be defined 
as those patents held by Microsoft which cover Essential Windows 
APIs, such that those APIs cannot possibly be implemented without 
infringing upon said patents.
    X. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition'' 
shall be defined as a document, suitable for approval by a standards 
body such as ECMA or IEEE, which accurately defines the inputs, 
outputs, and behavior of each Essential Windows API, and enumerates 
any Essential Windows API Patents.
    Y. ``Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test 
Suite'' shall be defined as software source code which, when 
compiled and run, automatically tests an operating system for 
compliance with the Essential Windows APIs Standard Definition, and 
outputs a list of each API which fails to comply with the Essential 
Windows APIs Standard Definition. The test suite should run 
unattended; that is, it should be capable of running without human 
interaction or supervision.

Release of Information

    Section E should be amended to remove the restriction on the use 
of the disclosed information:
    ... Microsoft shall disclose ... [for the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product,] for the 
purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product or 
with application software written for Windows, Because any new 
competitor in the Intel-compatible operating system must be able to 
run Windows applications to have a chance in the market, and because 
Microsoft has traditionally used undocumented Windows APIs as part 
of the Applications Barrier to Entry, the Final Judgment should 
provide explicitly for a clear definition of what APIs a competing 
operating system must provide to run Windows applications. The best 
way to do this is by submitting the API definitions to a standards 
body.
    This was done in 1994 for the Windows 3.1 APIs (see Sun's 1994 
press release about WABI 2.0 and the Public Windows Initiative). The 
result is Standard ECMA-234: Application Programming Interface for 
Windows (APIW), which provides standard definitions for an essential 
subset (four hundred and fourty-four out of the roughly one 
thousand) of the Windows 3.1 APIs; it was rendered mostly obsolete 
by the switch to Windows 95. The Final Judgment should provide for 
the creation of something like ECMA-234 for the various modern 
versions of Windows.
    Because Microsoft currently claims that it has intellectual 
property rights that protect the Windows APIs, but has never spelled 
out exactly which patents cover which APIs, the Final Judgment 
should force this to be spelled out.
    A new section IV.E should be created to achieve the above goals 
by adding the following text:
    E. Establishment of a Windows API Standards Expert Group Within 
60 days of entry of this Final Judgment, the parties shall create 
and recommend to the Court for its appointment a six person Windows 
API Standards Expert Group (``WASEG'') to manage the 
creation, publication, and maintenance of an Essential Windows APIs 
Standard Definition, and to guide it through the process of being 
adopted by a standards body such as ECMA or the IEEE.
    Three of the WASEG members shall be experts in software design 
and programming, and three of the WASEG members shall be experts in 
intellectual property law. No WASEG member shall have a conflict of 
interest that could prevent him or her from performing his or her 
duties under this Final Judgment in a fair and unbiased manner. No 
WASEG member shall have entered into any non-disclosure agreement 
that is still in force with Microsoft or any competitor to 
Microsoft, nor shall she or he enter into such an agreement during 
her or his term on the WASEG.
    Without limitation to the foregoing, no WASEG member shall have 
been employed in any capacity by Microsoft or any competitor to 
Microsoft within the past year, nor shall she or he be so employed 
during his or her term on the WASEG.
    Within seven days of entry of this Final Judgment, the 
Plaintiffs as a group shall select two software experts and two 
intellectual property law experts to be members-of the WASEG, and 
Microsoft shall select one software expert and one intellectual 
property law expert to be members of the WASEG; the Plaintiffs shall 
then apply to the Court for appointment of the persons selected by 
the Plaintiffs and Microsoft pursuant to this section.
    Each WASEG member shall serve for an initial term of 30 months. 
At the end of a WASEG member's initial 30-month term, the party that 
originally selected him or her may, in its sole discretion, either 
request re-appointment by the Court to a second 30-month term or 
replace the WASEG member in the same manner as provided for above.
    If the United States or a majority of the Plaintiffs determine 
that a member of the WASEG has failed to act diligently and 
consistently with the purposes of this Final Judgment, or if a 
member of the WASEG resigns, or for any other reason ceases to serve 
in his or her capacity as a member of the WASEG, the person or 
persons that originally selected the WASEG member shall select a 
replacement member in the same manner as provided for above.
    Promptly after appointment of the WASEG by the Court, the United 
States shall enter into a Windows API Expert Group services 
agreement ``WASEG Services Agreement'') with each WASEG 
member that grants the rights, powers and authorities necessary to 
permit the WASEG to perform its duties under this Final Judgment. 
Microsoft shall indemnify each WASEG member and hold him or her 
harmless against any losses, claims, damages, liabilities or 
expenses arising out of, or in connection with, the performance of 
the WASEG's duties, except to the extent that such liabilities, 
losses, damages, claims, or expenses result from misfeasance, gross 
negligence, willful or wanton acts, or bad faith by the WASEG 
member. The WASEG Services Agreements shall include the following:
    The WASEG members shall serve, without bond or other security, 
at the cost and expense of Microsoft on such terms and conditions as 
the Plaintiffs approve, including the payment of reasonable fees and 
expenses. The WASEG Services Agreement shall provide that each 
member of the WASEG shall comply with the limitations provided for 
in section IV.E.2. above.
    Microsoft shall provide the WASEG with funds needed to procure 
office space, telephone, other office support facilities, 
consultants, or contractors required by the WASEG.
    The WASEG shall not have direct access to any part of 
Microsoft's computer software source code that is not normally 
available to all ISV's. The WASEG shall not enter into any non-
disclosure agreements with Microsoft or third parties. No 
implementations of any Windows APIs shall be written or published by 
the WASEG.
    The WASEG shall have the following powers and duties: The WASEG 
may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers to questions 
about Microsoft intellectual property claims.

[[Page 30131]]

    The WASEG may require Microsoft to provide comprehensive answers 
to questions about the inputs, outputs, and functionality of any 
Windows API; in particular, the WASEG may compel Microsoft to 
provide complete documentation for Windows APIs, including hitherto 
undocumented or poorly-documented Windows APIs.
    The WASEG may engage, at the cost and expense of Microsoft, the 
services of outside consultants and contractors as required to 
fulfill the duties of the WASEG.
    The WASEG shall establish a publicly available web site not 
owned or otherwise controlled by Microsoft, and will publish status 
reports and other information there at least as often as once per 
month. Documentation on the web site shall be made available subject 
to the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; test suite 
source code made available on the web site shall be made available 
subject to the terms of the GNU General Public License.
    The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Windows APIs, 
including for each API the DLL name, entry point name, entry point 
ordinal number, return value type, and parameter types, as well as 
which versions of Windows it is supported by and what percentage of 
Popular Windows Applications use it. The WASEG shall publish this 
list on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU Free Documentation 
License, according to the following schedule: Within 90 days after 
the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish this information for 
at least three hundred Windows APIs. On the 1st of each month 
thereafter, the WASEG shall publish this information for another 
three hundred Windows APIs. This shall continue until a complete 
list of Windows APIs is available on the web site. The WASEG shall 
use tools such as Apius from Sarion Systems Research to verify that 
the list of Windows APIs is indeed complete, and that installing or 
running any Popular Windows Application does not cause any unlisted 
Windows API to be invoked.
    The WASEG shall compile a complete list of Essential Windows API 
patents and patents pending, and an evaluation of which Windows APIs 
each patent covers. The WASEG shall compile this information by 
asking Microsoft for a complete list of Essential Windows API 
patents and patents pending, and then determining which Windows APIs 
are likely to be covered by each patent or patent pending; the WASEG 
shall use the World Wide Web Consortium's document www.w3.org/TR/
2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124 as guidance. The WASEG shall 
publish this information on the WASEG web site subject to the GNU 
Free Documentation License, according to the following schedule: 
Within 90 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG shall publish 
an evaluation of 30 patents. On the 1st of each month thereafter, 
the WASEG shall publish an evaluation of another 30 patents. This 
shall continue until evaluations of all patents claimed by Microsoft 
to cover the Windows APIs have been published on the WASEG web site.
    The WASEG shall compile documentation for the list of Windows 
APIs defined above in section IV.E.9.e, including a complete 
description of the meanings of the return values and parameters, and 
the effects of the API. The documentation should be composed in a 
style similar to that used for the Single Unix Specification 
documentation ( http://www.UNIX-systems.org/go/unix). Within 180 
days after the WASEG is convened, and on the 1st of every month 
thereafter until complete, the WASEG will make available the 
currently completed portion of this documentation via its web site.
    When the three documents described above--the list of 
Windows APIs, the list of Essential Windows Patents, and the 
documentation for the listed Windows APIs--is complete, the 
WASEG shall undertake to submit them to a standards body such as 
ECMA or the IEEE as a Public Windows APIs Standard Document, and to 
make such enhancements and revisions as needed to gain the 
acceptance of that document as a standard.
    The WASEG shall create an Essential Windows APIs Standard 
Compliance Test Suite, and publish it on the WASEG web site subject 
to the GNU General Public License, according to the following 
schedule: Within 180 days after the WASEG is convened, the WASEG 
shall publish test cases for at least fifty Windows APIs. On the 1st 
of each month thereafter, the WASEG shall publish test cases for at 
least another fifty Windows APIs. This shall continue until a 
complete Essential Windows APIs Standard Compliance Test Suite is 
available on the web site.
    In the event that a planned update to Windows or any other 
Microsoft product is expected to result in the creation of new 
Windows APIs, the WASEG shall create addenda to the above documents 
and test suite covering the new APIs, make them available via its 
web site, and undertake to submit them to the same standards body as 
above as an addendum to the standard.

Prohibition of More Practices Toward OEMs

    III. A. 2. of the Proposed Final Judgment should be amended to 
read 2. shipping a Personal Computer that (a) includes both a 
Windows Operating System Product and a non-Microsoft Operating 
System, or (b) will boot with more than one Operating System, or (c) 
includes a non-Microsoft Operating System but no Windows Operating 
System Product; or ...

Summary

    This document demonstrates that there are so many problems with 
the PFJ that it is not in the public interest. It also illustrates 
how one might try to fix some of these problems.
    Dan Kegel



MTC-00033552

From: Michael L. Mitchell
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
** Secret **
    Hello,
    I would like to provide my comment on the settlement that the 
Justice Department has entered in with Microsoft. I believe that the 
settlement is quite adequate. If anymore were to be done it has a 
reverse effect of harming the consumer (me). I think it is time that 
this matter be settle and the allow Microsoft and the Justice 
Department move forward.
    Thank you
    Michael L. Mitchell
    Brandon, FL



MTC-00033553

From: Michael Batchelder
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:09pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed 
settlement in the case of US v. Microsoft. As an information 
technology professional, I have personally witnessed Microsoft's 
policies restricting consumer choice (my own, w/regard to purchasing 
computers without Windows operating systems), failing to provide 
quality service (for which increased competition should be the 
solution), and limiting, rather than encouraging innovation.
    Should the Department of Justice choose to move forward with the 
proposed settlement, I will take it as compelling evidence that the 
Bush administration is clearly a government ``for large 
corporate interests, by large corporate interests, and of large 
corporate interests'', at the expense of the peoples'' 
interest.
    Thank you,
    Michael Batchelder
    Redwood City, CA



MTC-00033554

From: jbarney
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:10pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    I am a small business owner. Ten years ago my business had to 
cobble together a variety of software programs in order to operate 
my business because one program would not talk to another program. 
To do so was very expensive and time consuming. These are the very 
companies that are suing Microsoft. Along came Microsoft and tied it 
all together, and did so at a reasonable price. These other 
companies are just whining because they still don't have the ability 
to come up with a workable system.
    Their is no antitrust case against Microsoft. Nobody has been 
hurt. Quite the contrary, Microsoft has made life a lot easier for 
most of us. It is just a political charade. Quit spending taxpayer 
money, throw the case out. and get on with life.
    Jack Barney



MTC-00033555

From: jwjptw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Sirs:
    I would recommend that the DOJ stop any further action against 
Microsoft and accept the settlement. I have been involved with 
computers for 24 years and decided long ago it made sense to go with 
Microsoft products beginning with MS-DOS. They have developed good 
products with excellent support and training. They have empowered 
the home computer user to expand his vision and utilize tools that 
previously were beyond his expectations and without effort to learn 
programming in order to achieve immediate

[[Page 30132]]

success. Microsoft has done more to advance human knowledge and 
productivity than any single corporation has in the technical age.
    Many of the plaintiffs exhibit greed and envy in their comments 
and actions while trying to get the government to grievously impair 
a competitor when their primary damage is to their egos.
    The attorneys in the federal government, states, and some 
individual corporations have used this venue to enhance their own 
public images, which is such a waste of public money. You have a 
settlement; take it and get on to matters that are more important.
    Thank you,
    Jack Jenkins



MTC-00033557

From: Michael Capehart
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement is a bad idea, and will only serve to let 
Microsoft off with a slap on the wrist for destroying any real 
chance for competition in the computer software industry. Stop them 
now, because you will not get another chance.
    Mike Capehart
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00033558

From: Kevin P. Rice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:18pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    My name is Kevin Rice. I live in Bellevue, Washington, and work 
as a business analyst. As part of my work, I use many of Microsoft's 
products, including Microsoft Windows NT and Microsoft Office 97. I 
consider myself to be a power user and build sophisticated documents 
with Microsoft Excel and Access that include procedures written 
using built in macro language for Office, Visual Basic for 
Applications. At home, I use an Apple Macintosh and Microsoft Office 
98, so I am familiar with multiple computer operating systems.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgement as currently structured 
does not meet the public interest. The proposed penalties are 
inadequate given Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior as outlined in 
the Findings of Fact, and Microsoft has too much influence over 
enforcement through the Technical Committee. The current competitive 
situation in the computer industry and its impact on consumers 
requires tougher, enforceable penalties.
    According to the Findings of Fact, Microsoft has engaged in 
anticompetitive business behavior. It is important that there be 
punishment for this behavior; without adequate punishment, Microsoft 
has no incentive to discontinue and alter the behavior deemed 
anticompetitive by the courts. Microsoft could easily defend itself 
against complaints using the legal system, while small businesses 
with innovative products beneficial to the consumer would have no 
practical recourse, even in the courts, if they were the victims of 
any anticompetitive practice by Microsoft. The Final Judgement in 
Civil Action 94-1564 prohibits Microsoft from entering 
``into any License Agreement that by its terms prohibits or 
restricts the OEM's licensing, sale or distribution of any non-
Microsoft Operating System Software product.'' Also, Microsoft 
cannot enter into an agreement with an OEM that prohibits the OEM 
from ``licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-
Microsoft product.'' According to the Findings of Fact, 
Microsoft has already violated the prohibitions in the Final 
Judgement by not allowing OEMs to install their own tutorial 
software to their computers'' boot sequence. This prevented 
OEMs from offering a useful benefit to consumers. Microsoft also 
violated the spirit of the Final Judgement by not allowing OEMs to 
delete the Internet Explorer icon from the Windows desktop; this 
discouraged OEMs from putting an alternative browser on the desktop 
because it would be confusing to consumers. Given this behavior, 
stricter remedies would be appropriate. However the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement does little more than restate the prohibited 
behavior of the previous Final Judgement using more precise language 
updated to reflect the current industry environment. This will not 
prevent Microsoft from altering their behavior in ways that may (or 
may not) be in compliance but would still be anticompetitive, 
requiring more legal action and prolonging harm to consumers. The 
language in the RPFJ also does nothing to penalize Microsoft for 
illegal behavior. This will make the prohibitions in the RPFJ more 
difficult to enforce, since violations of the prior Final Judgement 
resulted in no significant penalty to Microsoft.
    The RPFJ calls for the establishment of a Technical Committee, 
with one member chosen by Microsoft and another member that the 
Microsoft-chosen TC member must agree to. Given that Microsoft has 
been ``found guilty'' of anticompetitive monopoly 
maintenance, they have too much influence over the makeup of the TC. 
The selection process for the Technical Committee is analogous to 
giving an accused murderer the ability to choose some of the jurors 
for his trial. A better alternative would be to give Microsoft 
limited veto ability similar to a jury selection process, with 
members randomly selected from a pool of candidates that meet the 
qualifications outlined in the RPFJ.
    The current Revised Proposed Final Judgement does not improve 
the competitive environment in the computer industry and does not 
benefit consumers or the public interest. Because of the lack of 
serious alternatives to Microsoft products, consumers pay more for 
those products in extra time spent resolving defects in Microsoft 
software. These defects range from bugs that interfere with the 
desired use of computer software to vulnerabilities to viruses such 
as Melissa, Code Red, and Nimda. In addition there may be an unknown 
number of potential innovations in computer hardware or software 
that will not be made available to consumers because of fear of 
anticompetitive business practices by Microsoft. Netscape is but one 
example of what can currently happen to a business with an 
innovative product in conflict with Microsoft's business goals. 
Therefore, it is critical that any settlement or other remedy of 
this case effectively curbs Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior.



MTC-00033559

From: Javier L. Madrid
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Your Honor, Now is the time to preempt the further spread of 
Microsoft's plans to expand their ill-gotten monoply. The company 
that started by offering products to make computing easier for non-
programmers has reached a point of diminishing returns for those 
same people. For a number of years now their efforts have been 
focussed more on the protection of their revenue stream ( you and I) 
than on true innovation. Not only have they been bereft of 
innovative products but have hired away from academia and their 
rivals truly innovative thinkers thus preventing the fruits of their 
scientific labor benefiting their competitors.
    From my vantage point from within the Tech Industry I feel that 
this unapologetic and arrogant company that has grown so huge in its 
pervasiveness in every day life must be dealt with in a truly 
historic harsh fashion. As they have dealt brutally from a business 
perspective with those perceived as even remotely competitive 
whether it be a single person or a company so they too must now be 
taken to task.
    These are my recommendations:
    (1) They are not to be allowed to expand to ANY new technical 
markets for 10 years either by partnership or funding or purchasing 
of companies or rights to technology.
    (2) Levy a 10 billion dollar penalty against the company and 
only accept CASH, and not spread over 5 or 10 years of installments. 
Use the money to help fix our educational system.
    (3) They must open the entire set of Windows APIs and file 
formats now and in the future to truly foster competition and 
innovation.
    Your Honor, it is key that this company not be allowed to 
``embrace and extend'' their monoply.
    Their true intentions are not so much about producing good 
products as it is about preserving at all costs a regular tithing 
from you and I.
    Your Honor, it is time for you to ``think outside the 
box''.



MTC-00033560

From: Michael J. Kennedy
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:35pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Court: I have read and cosigned the Open Letter 
to DOJ Re: Microsoft Settlement written by Dan Kegal, and I am 
writing to further express my opinion of the Proposed Final 
Judgement in the United States v. Microso case. I believe that the 
Proposed Final Judgement should not go through the way it is. I am 
aware that the Department of Justice concluded that Microsoft has 
engaged in monopolistic behaviors and that Microsoft has used its

[[Page 30133]]

position of power to prevent competition. However, this main problem 
still has not been addressed fully. Under the settlement as it 
currenly is written, Microsoft would essentially be able to continue 
its anti-competitive practices merely by altering some of its 
company procedures.
    I believe that Microsoft should be required to publish 
documentation of its APIs for uninhibited use by developers of 
alternative software systems. This will serve to reduce the 
``appications barrier to entry,'' allowing developers of 
competing products to add compatability for existing standards. 
This, in turn, allows those developers to make a successful entry 
into the software market, thus promoting competition.
    I also contend that Microsoft should be disallowed to certify 
hardware devices as ``designed for Windows,'' unless the 
specifications of those devices are released to the public. 
Consumers don't want to use an operating system that doesn't support 
their hardware. Maintaining secret hardware specifications hinders 
the development of free operating systems that run on a wide range 
of hardware.
    In conclusion, I believe that the Proposed Final Judgement is 
not good enough and is in need of revision. The revisions should 
ensure that Microsoft cannot resume actions that are anti-
competitive and that are not in the public interest. Thank you for 
your time and consideration.
    Sincerely,
    Michael J. Kennedy
    Champaign, IL
    Computer Science Student
    University of Illinois



MTC-00033561

From: Jessica Kohagen
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:38pm
Subject: ``Microsoft Settlement''
    I am writing as both a concerned college student and as a 
concerned consumer. I truly believe that open competition in every 
market promotes better quality and utilizes all the available 
resources. I fear that the demand for engineers in computer-related 
fields will decrease significantly if Microsoft's competition is 
restricted or eliminated. In addition, the development of computer-
related technology maybe be slowed if companies aren't trying to 
``get an edge'' over one another. Keeping unrestricted 
competition will ensure state-of-the-art technology and quality 
products for the consumer as well as job openings and possible 
entrepreneurships for those currently in the industry as well as 
those who will be entering it within a few years.
    Sincerely,
    Jessica Kohagen
    Pardee Tower #612
    614 W. 35th Pl.
    Los Angeles, CA 90089
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033562

From: Frances Fronczak
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/27/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Frances Fronczak
3820-C Carlsbad Blvd
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4004
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Please stop picking on Microsoft. This is a Republic where 
capitalism is king and Microsoft has brought us to an unsurpassed 
degree of growth in technology and prosperity. The unnecessary DOJ 
pursuit of Microsoft has caused many financial losses to average 
Americans in jobs and in the financial markets. The proposed 
settlement should be approved so that we can all go forward and stop 
wasting productive American ingenuity from one of the greatest 
companies in the universe. The only beneficiaries from this ordeal 
will, in all likelihood, be the attorneys, as we have all witnessed 
in the past in regard to the persecution of the Tobacco companies.
    Yours truly,
    Frances Fronczak, MD



MTC-00033563

From: Ken Kundert
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is clear to me that the DOJ caved in to intense lobbying 
pressure when it agreed to the current settlement. That is the only 
way to explain it. Anybody that has paid any attention to 
Microsoft's behavior of the last decade knows that this settlement 
will have no significant impact on Microsoft. They will ignore it 
like they ignored both the law and the restrictions that they agreed 
to in the past. Furthermore, I do not believe that they would have 
been offered this settlement had they not improperly influenced both 
the Executive Branch and our law makers. Giving Microsoft this 
settlement shows the people of the United States and the world that 
justice in America does not apply to the very wealthy.
    It is my sincere hope that the original spirit of the Tunney act 
is followed. If so, I confident that it will come out that Microsoft 
was able to buy a very favorable settlement. At the very least, I 
hope that you reject the DOJ settlement and go with the settlement 
proposal of the 9 dissident states. Better yet, I hope you return to 
the idea of breaking up Microsoft. I have been involved in the 
software industry for 20 years, though I have never been directly or 
indirectly employed by either Microsoft or its competitors, and I 
can say with great confidence that Microsoft, with its monopoly 
position, has slowed the progress of the computer industry by at 
least 10 years. The cost of not having competitors to its buggy and 
insecure software has been vast. Breaking up Microsoft will be the 
best thing for consumers.
    Ken Kundert



MTC-00033564

From: Lindsay Ray
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Judge,
    I don't think that the PFJ is the correct solution to this 
problem. Microsoft is a fabulous company, however, they are in 
direct violation to the law. They are guilty of some very serious 
anti-competitive violations. The PFJ does not provide an effective 
enforcement mechanism. What microsoft has done to many companies is 
very wrong and needs to be stopped. It is not fair. The world needs 
competition.
    Thanks
    Lindsay Ray 213-764-3843



MTC-00033565

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ladies and Gentlemen:
    I whole heartedly support the proposed settlement agreement in 
U.S. v. Microsoft. While no settlement is likely to please all, this 
settlement has well thought out, purposeful remedies that will 
encourage technical innovation and market competition. It is time to 
accept the fair remedies of the settlement and allow the industry to 
concentrate on creating the new computing products that will create 
jobs and stimulate the economy.
    Kevin Schuler
    President
    InDepth Technology
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033566

From: Jim White
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:48pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern:
    This my public comment under the Tunney Act.
    I am OPPOSED to the revised proposed Final Judgement to resolve 
the United States'' civil antitrust case against Microsoft as 
it currently is formulated (11/06/2001).
    The proposed remedies are entirely inadequate to resolve ongoing 
anti-competitive practices by Microsoft with regard to the 
development and marketing of software competing with the Windows 
Operating System. Of particular importance is that no provision is 
made to prevent Microsoft's efforts to subvert the development and 
distribution of free and open software that competes with Windows. 
Microsoft is using its many entangling End User License Agreements 
for both its applications (such Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office, 
etc) and SDKs (software development kits, necessary in many cases 
for practical development of applications to be used with or to 
compete with Windows) to REQUIRE that the End User to only use the 
application software on a Microsoft licensed operating system. This 
is blatant product tying to the monopoly Windows OS with the direct 
consequence of preventing the distribution of legal competing 
products.

[[Page 30134]]

    Thank you for your consideration.
    Signed,
    James White
    Software Consulant
    Laguna Hills, CA



MTC-00033568

From: Mickey Aberman
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 10:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Public Comment:
    I have no dog in the Microsoft fight. Nevertheless, I have been 
following the case since the trial started.
    Microsoft was proven to have committed massive antitrust 
violations. During the trial it was caught falsifying a 
demonstration, and its executives were caught lying many times.
    The court of appeals en banc upheld the findings of serious 
violations and monopolizing on a scale that is huge. This was 
apparently the full court of appeals, comprised to al arge extent of 
conservative judges).
    How can Microsoft have any hope of avoiding massive punishment? 
A defendant one-tenth the size, whose violation had one-tenth the 
scope, would be trying to keep its executives out of jail.
    The Microsft settlement is surreal (and unfairly favorable to 
the Defendant). It looks like political connections or intimidation 
have prevailed over justice.
    Microsoft really needs to be broken up into three parts.
    John M. Aberman
    2145 Radcliffe Avenue
    Charlotte, NC 28207
    (704) 372-5646



MTC-00033569

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I wish to express my opposition to the Proposed Final Judgment 
with Microsoft.
    I do not believe the proposed remedies will do anything to curb 
the behaviors of Microsoft which were found to be in violation of 
antitrust laws when the company was found guilty.
    For example, the proposal includes many opportunities or 
loopholes for Microsoft to exclude itself from API disclosure 
requirements. It can simply claim that there are security reasons 
for not documenting an API. It can itself define who is a true 
competitor. Why does this Proposed Final Judgment allow Microsoft 
such leeway in deciding itself whether it con be excluded from a 
requirement of the Proposed Final Judgment? Allowing Microsoft to 
claim security as a reason to not disclose an API is ridiculous. 
Unix and Unix-like operating systems describe all their APIs 
clearly, some even give you all their source code (Linux, FreeBSD, 
OpenBSD, etc.) and do not consider this a security problem at all. 
Security through obscurity, as it is called, is most definitely not 
better than security through open discussion, availability ond peer 
review, and in my opinion (and that of many security experts) is 
worse. I believe that this particular exception to disclosure should 
never have made it into the Proposed Final Judgment.
    My opinion that the Proposed Final Judgment lacks any true 
corrective power goes beyond the comment above, but applies to it as 
a whole. I believe that this Proposed Final Judgment heavily favors 
the guilty in these proceedings and fails to adequately represent 
the United States of America. We the people, represented by the 
Department of Justice, received a verdict of guilty against 
Microsoft, yet it now seems that we are backing down in the 
sentencing phase. The fact alone that the guilty party in this 
matter likes this Proposed Final Judgment makes it suspect beyond 
specific problems with it.
    In summary, I believe the Proposed Final Judgment is not in the 
public interest. It does not seriously, nor effectively address the 
illegal behavior of the convicted monopolist, Microsoft.
    Respectfully submitted,
    Olivier Calle
    Senior Software Engineer, Citizen of the United States of 
America
    PO Box 752
    Marysville WA 98270-0752



MTC-00033570

From: Pedro Celis (wrnha)
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement.
Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Washington State
    Dear Sirs,
    As Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of 
Washington State we offer our endorsement of the agreement reached 
by Microsoft, the U.S. Department of Justice and nine states. The 
settlement should be accepted not only for its specifics, but also 
for the principles that it represents.
    Whenever conflicts arise, our government should strive to find 
common ground and reach compromises with business. Negotiation and 
settlement is a better model for government-business relations than 
litigation. It is unfortunate that the dispute between Microsoft and 
the government has already resulted in such a long and costly trial. 
Better still, government should seek to minimize its interference 
with the competitive market place; it should work as an ally with, 
not an adversary to, business.
    Litigation is never good for business or industry. Because 
virtually all businesses rely on technology, the Microsoft case 
affects us all. As the case proceeded, it appeared that government, 
not the competitive marketplace, might establish the direction of 
technology. Such an event would have proved disastrous for the 
technology industry, for the greater business community, and for the 
economy.
    We are happy to see that a comprise and agreement has been 
reached between these parties and we encourage you to accept this 
settlement. pThis settlement would be fair and reasonable at any 
time, even if our economy was growing at a rapid pace. However that 
is not currently the case, and for that reason it is all the more 
important that the settlement be finalized and the American 
technology industry starts to benefit from a public policy that 
minimizes costly regulation, ensures competition, and promotes fair 
trade and intellectual property enforcement in international 
markets.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Pedro Celis, Ph.D.
    Republican National Hispanic Assembly
    Washington State Chairman



MTC-00033571

From: Patrick Melody
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I am writing in regard to the Microsoft Settlement. I am 
troubled by the settlement as it does not appear to do anything to 
remedy harm caused by Microsoft's actions nor do anything to promote 
the public good. As background information on myself, I have a 
master's degree in computer science and have worked as a 
professional programmer since 1995. Previous to this I have used and 
programmed computers as a hobby since high school in the early 
1980s.
    The operating system is the lowest level of software on a 
computer, on which all other software running on the computer 
depends. The value of a ubiquitous operating system to the public is 
that it provides a unified platform on which to target applications. 
Program developers need learn only this one system, and large 
numbers of users may then enjoy the availability of numerous 
application programs.
    Furthermore, these users can easily interoperate with each other 
since they all share the OS as a common infrastructure. The value of 
a ubiquitous operating system to it's owner is the dependence of 
millions of users on the owner. This dependence can be used to 
leverage dependence in other areas besides the OS.
    The Internet ``works'' and has enjoyed great success 
because it was built on open protocols that are independent of any 
particular hardware or software program. Even though you and I may 
use completely different hardware platforms, operating systems, and/
or email programs, we can still exchange email with no difficulties. 
Even though our web pages may be produced with different authoring 
programs and we may use different web browsers, we can still read 
each others web pages. This is due to the open protocols and data 
formats used on the internet. In the age of the disconnected desktop 
computer, the operating system was the common substrate. In the age 
of connected systems a new common substrate as appeared: 
communications protocols and file/data formats. The benefit of the 
public to these open protocols and formats is clear: the ability to 
have software written by anyone interoperate seamlessly and 
effectively with software written by anyone else. First, any 
networking protocols used by Microsoft must be fully published and 
approved by an independent network protocol body before any 
Microsoft software using them is deployed. This especially applies 
to the .NET and associated Hailstorm and Passport technologies, 
which Microsoft is clearly positioning to be tomorrow's ubiquitous 
software infrastructure. The purpose of this is to ensure the 
ability of anyone's software

[[Page 30135]]

to interoperate with Microsoft software and prevent Microsoft from 
using their OS monopoly to gain a monopoly over internet usage.
    Second, any file formats used by Microsoft must be fully 
published so that these files may be read and written by independent 
developers, again to ensure interoperability with Microsoft's 
software.
    Finally, there must be effective provisions for the settlement 
to be enforced since a settlement that can be ignored without severe 
repercussions is no settlement at all.
    Microsoft has repeatedly indicated it feels it has done nothing 
wrong and that this entire case is an unjustified imposition on it, 
even going so far as to fake video evidence in front of a federal 
judge. Such a defendant cannot be trusted on its own recognizance. 
The current settlement has no teeth.
    Microsoft will undoubtedly cry that these measures are unfair. 
However, the rules of business are different for monopolists than 
for non-monopolists, and there must be a penalty for monopolists 
found guilty of illegally maintaining a monopoly as Microsoft has 
done. As such, these measures are not unfair and would greatly serve 
the public interest by allowing nonmonopolist software to interact 
on even ground with the monopolist's software, allowing more 
competition and more options to the public in choosing their 
products and services.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick J. Melody
    3708 Acosta Rd
    Fairfax VA 22031
    [email protected]
    [email protected]



MTC-00033572

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:18pm
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,
    Vince Bradley
    5329 Summerlin Road
    Fort Myers, FL 33919



MTC-00033574

From: Thomas Tuttle
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:31am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Thomas Tuttle
3602 Alpine Rd
Madison, WI 53704
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Tuttle



MTC-00033575

From: William J. McGurk
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
William J. McGurk
Rockville Bank, 1645 Ellington Road
South Windsor, CT 06074
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    As a taxpayer and consumer, I support the proposed settlement of 
the Microsoft lawsuit, and urge you to approve it. Let's stop the 
waste of taxpayers money fighting a fair settlement.
    Sincerely,
    William J. McGurk



MTC-00033576

From: Walter L. Johnson
To: Renata Hesse (E-mail)
Date: 1/28/02 8:10am
Subject: DOJ v Microsoft, an end user opinion
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    It is my understanding that opinions regarding the DoJ v 
Microsoft ruling is allowed and welcomed by your office. I have 
attached such a document that states what perceive and believe in 
the matter.
    Thank you,
    Walter L Johnson

From: Walter L. Johnson
To: Renata Hesse (E-mail)
Date: 1/28/02 8:10am
Subject: DOJ v Microsoft, an end user opinion
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    It is my understanding that opinions regarding the DoJ v 
Microsoft ruling is allowed and welcomed by your office. I have 
attached such a document that states what perceive and believe in 
the matter.
    Thank you,
    Walter L Johnson
    The agreement between Microsoft and the Department of Justice, 
An opinion By Walter L. Johnson While the subject, action has been 
concluded with what has been perceived as less than a satisfactory 
agreement, there are extended implications for which we must 
prepare. If you want to cut to the chase, see ``Some final 
words'' at the end of this opinion.
    The allegations filed against Microsoft by the Department of 
Justice at the outset has the appearances of a cut and dried case of 
unfair practices involving free and open competition. The ruling 
therefore had all the appearance and intent of limiting unfair 
competition. We must conclude that there was sufficient evidence 
against Microsoft to create a ruling. On closer examination, the

[[Page 30136]]

ruling is not as straightforward as it should be, that is if 
Microsoft was so clearly at fault. Specifically, there are certain 
portions of the settlement that clearly limit Microsoft's 
competitive ability and others allow it to continue to compete.
    Moreover, other portions of the settlement allow Microsoft to 
continue to pursue its larger strategy without the hindrances that 
the litigants were seeking. It is this enigmatic judgment that needs 
examination. This examination is not for the purposes of a retrial 
but for an understanding, because the end user could once again reap 
the benefits as could the litigants.
    Microsoft:
    To say that Microsoft has brought desktop computing, PC style, 
into the mainstream would be an understatement. MS took the next 
software development step immediately after general PC hardware was 
made commercially possible. Had not MS done this, desktop computing 
could still be limited to offices. And most probably that would have 
been due to prohibitive costs. Microsoft has stated all along that 
its goal was to spread computing through society as a whole and link 
it via a network. To achieve this goal it supplied an operating 
system, graphic user interface and application software. It bundled 
software, made special offers, collected partners and bought 
companies.
    If this is, in general, a fair assessment of Microsoft's intent, 
actions, and strategy, then an examination of how it achieved it's 
goals through what has been characterized as ``questionable 
tactics'', are in order. And this includes the resulting 
judgment by the DoJ.
    * A previous analysis has been completed by ``ACT Analysis 
of Microsoft/DOJ Proposed Settlement'', 1413 K Street, NW, 12th 
Floor, Washington, DC 20005, www.ACTonline.org. I have used it's 6 
headers to lend structure to my comments as I believe they tip the 
ice burg.
    1.``For computer manufacturers (OEMs) who equip their 
products with any Microsoft operating system--Guaranteed 
flexibility.''
    Microsoft has been ordered to modularize it's OS, GUI and 
middleware to allow OEMs to remove ``pieces and parts'' at 
will and ``mix and match'' other OEM products and to have 
the freedom to control the boot sequence of the of the OS. 
Additionally, uniform-licensing terms, discounts, and marketing 
freedom are ordered. Microsoft could have modularized their product 
earlier and competed ``piece at a time'' but they chose to 
integrate so that the product could function easier and quicker. 
Remember hardware at the time of these alleged offences were slow 
and quirky. Sometimes Windows worked well only for a particular 
platform or hardware configuration. MS dealt with several clone 
producers to enable their product to operate on the hardware 
platform. It was a custom fit in many cases made by MS and the clone 
producer before it arrived at the client. While MS was fighting the 
OS/Hardware infrastructure problem, it appears likely that ease of 
inclusion and exclusion was not a feature high on their list. It 
seems that there were two problems that existed for MS, hardware and 
application fit. MS chose the easy route, which excluded 
competitors. MS was not obligated to assist its competitors in 
undermining itself.
    The Department of Justice has ordered Microsoft to make it's OS 
a highly modularized piece of software.
    This means that if a competitor, for example, wants a different 
browser to be integrated into lets say Windows XP and that the 
resulting product could be licensed as a VAP called ``Windows 
XP Rouser Browser.'' The competitor will pay Microsoft a volume 
rate for their basic ``Windows XP'' modular without the 
Windows browser. If their resulting product'' is a contender to 
Microsoft's, then as they say, ``we've got a horse race.'' 
Finally, Microsoft will not create any damaging strategy and or 
tactic regarding this portion of the judgment that may be considered 
a conscience effort to harm or hinder their competitor. The 
competitor may integrate any middleware software of their choice 
that previously WAS an integral part of the Microsoft OS including 
controlling the boot up sequence.
    A modular, accessible core is made available which allows anyone 
the ability to plug their component into the core or just eliminate 
that component functionality. Additionally, remember that MS piece 
of middleware that is not used? It may be integrated into their 
competitors OS. If MS is listening, their components may become more 
valuable separately. Who is the winner? Will the costs rise? If you 
recall, it was Netscape that took offence when MS bundled their own 
Internet explorer with Windows. Netscape said unfair competitive 
practices. Who lost? Netscape! Who won? The end user won and that 
reinforced MS and their bundling practice. Modularizing may be the 
smartest thing that the DoJ did for the public and Microsoft. 
Moreover, it will make MS and it's competitors very interested in 
turning out better products. The end result is that if all the 
competitors play by the rules, then all will win. If Microsoft was 
all that good at producing products before then they will prove it 
again by producing an even better product in the future. 
Additionally, the competition will be given the opportunity to do 
the same.
    *2.``For all information technology (IT) providers, 
including Microsoft's competitors--Guaranteed access to 
technical specifications.'' MS must now give up what ever 
information it has that enables machines running the Windows OS to 
communicate with MS servers. This may not include MS's middleware 
code but How it interfaces with their servers. This means that 
another software producer now has all of the protocol specifics to 
create a specialized product for communications purposes or 
something to think about regarding a run around with their systems. 
In other words MS's competitors have some more advantage. It is the 
``modularization and cooking instruction'' for networking 
within MS Client and server products that the DoJ has delivered. Of 
course MS must license ANY intellectual property rights to encourage 
middleware production by it's competitors. The final part of this 
part of the settlement is that MS may not penalize it's competitors.
    Once again, this is a double-edged sword. Does any company 
really want to have a stand up fight with Microsoft? Most 
competitors will say yes, if it's a fair fight. And now, there are 
certain areas that are very level and fair but even at this, MS has 
an advantage. MS is big and has learned to mobilize a development 
effort into a formidable force. It was seldom a deadline to compete 
with competitors but to keep public promises that motivated MS to 
excel. I believe that Microsoft's brand of internal talent 
motivation is ``carrot and stick.'' When you give a gifted 
group a challenge in an arena of their own, they will work 
themselves beyond reason. In the new ``competitive 
product'' arena, the talent wilt need more than the ``C 
and S'' motivation. It is possible that the companies that 
precipitated the litigation wanted a fair fight. BUT, most probably, 
they wanted a breakup of Microsoft. That would have tied one hand 
behind MS and given the competition an advantage. This way once MS 
restructures and provides sensitivity training, they will continue. 
But it can never continue as usual, this will be an all out fight if 
anyone wants to gain a clear victory. I believe that Microsoft is in 
the lead as before. However, with the new rules, old incentives have 
been re-exposed to more players. How they will get there is fuzzy. 
Moreover, Microsoft is unclear how they will improve their 
modularized product to remain within the judgment and be superior. 
Products being self contained yet accessible to broad use is good 
for the competition and may be even better for Microsoft.
    If MS must modularize then so must its competition. 
Modularization with flexible interfaces that are tight, compact, 
unbreakable, self-repairing, self-resetting modules. This has a lot 
of potential because individual mods may be very narrow task 
orientated or broad and intuitive in purpose. Put your system 
together and have it very focused and directed. This part of your 
system is manufactured by MS and that by AOL Time Warner, or Sun, 
etc. This year MS has the best browser, next year Sun. Plug it in or 
pull it out and put in another module by another manufacture.
    The manufactures of the products you buy will strive to improve 
their products and it will make them stronger and smarter. Everybody 
wins.
    3.``For end users---Guaranteed flexibility.'' 
It's simple, full capability for the end user to mix and match or 
change it's mind. If they want to reverse a decision to use this 
module, remove it and replace it with another, with on horrendous 
results. This makes evaluation of products that claim to be superior 
easier. Sales can persuade but performance will confirm.
    Niche products may completely take over a middle ground for 
dedicated groups of users. A product may rise to the surface as the 
clear winner. Whichever the case, each module that has been defined 
as middleware or that has been declared as a self-contained product 
in it's own right will become a product in its own right. The end 
user can customize their desktop computer to their taste and 
purpose. And of course each individual product, module, will have 
its own price tag. Buying an operating system piecemeal could become 
difficult but I suspect that Microsoft will publish instructions. 
Its competitors will complain,

[[Page 30137]]

MS will explain and in most cases the chess game will continue. 
Remember, the end user reaps the result.
    *4. ``For those who doubt Microsoft would comply with the 
settlement agreement-- An unprecedented enforcement 
mechanism.''
    The settlement has caused Microsoft to provide at their cost, a 
mechanism that allows resources, access, and authority to complain. 
If a competitor thinks that Microsoft is acting outside the 
agreement then it may file a fast acting complaint. This mechanism 
for complaint has been created in the form of an autonomous 
committee, technical committee, TC. It can get bigger or smaller as 
is needed, its own judgment, to provide for the examination due to 
complaints.
    I am not sure if it allows for examination of releases or new 
products. The delaying tactics that will most likely be practiced by 
the competition will put the TC in constant conflict. However, this 
will not be forever. And, if MS keeps it's nose clean and learns to 
play the game, the TC will be a minor inconvenience. It is quite 
possible that a stamp of approval from the TC will bolster MS's 
public image. The TC had better know it's stuff, otherwise the 
jailor may be held it contention. Maybe the TC will be disputed by 
those it was formed to protect.
    *5. ``For AOL Time Warner, Oracle, and Sun-- 
Opportunities to hinder Microsoft by abusing the settlement 
agreement.''
    AOL Time Warner(Netscape), Oracle and Sun has been given the 
opportunity to observer a hand slap instead of an execution. This 
has caused the three protagonists much worry because they thought a 
breakup would deliver them the market unfettered for a considerable 
length of time. Now they are forced to face a giant that has been 
caused to kneel in repentance. Not the executed they expected.
    That giant will be rising soon to its considerable height and 
that is a formidable sight. You can forget about the states that 
sued, they were in it for the money not justice and MS fowled that 
by offering public education an arm's length gift. Yes, it will 
expose education to Microsoft's products but later a modularized 
product. There are many who would like cash offering by Microsoft 
but that was not decreed by the DoJ. It appears that Microsoft has 
exceeded the spirit and intent of the judgment in a positive way. 
Remember if Microsoft's products are inferior, it will be proven to 
a wider audience, and if Education chooses to supplant a module for 
another so be it that is fair. The politicians have enough of our 
money, which they deny education. This could be an immediate break 
for education. It would appear that for a giant Microsoft has a 
gentle side.
    Some final words:
    To the point, Was Microsoft seen to be so far in the distance 
that it was no longer a race for first place but a question of a 
race at all? If this was such a race, how did Microsoft get so far 
ahead? There has been much exposed over the years about Microsoft's 
phenomenal rise to the top of the heap, It's rise to power was not 
being hidden but it was revealed in detail during the trial. 
Moreover, that may be why Microsoft received something akin to a 
hand slap rather than a public beheading.
    IBM helped. IBM allowed Microsoft to keep the rights to the 
original microcomputer operating system that it had developed. This 
was after Microsoft had developed an operating system for IBM's new 
desktop hardware platform in the very early eighties. Microsoft 
decided to improve their version and license it on mass-produced 
personal computers. If and when PCs took hold.
    All it took was the non-biological cloning of the PC, ``PC 
clone,'' and the rest is history. There was one fee charged for 
each Microsoft Operating System that each PC clone received. That 
event was the base of revenue that allowed Microsoft to improve 
their operating system and pass the competition. Later they decided 
to market applications. The applications were not the best in the 
beginning but they improved until they were the standard. The 
Internet was becoming a reality so they started to work with it.
    However, that was just before they started bundling and bundling 
gave them an edge. While there were organizations vending a word 
processor or a spreadsheet or communications package (pre internet) 
as a separate product, Microsoft vended a suite of applications with 
some loose ties to each other. Later Microsoft developed an 
operating system with a graphic user interface towards the mid 
nineties. And just a little bit later in the mid nineties, the 
commercial internet became a reality and with it MS released an 
internet explorer, bundled with their new operation system. This 
takes us to 1995. It is this period, probably 1988 to 1998, that 
Microsoft's competitors lost ground, and intense infighting took 
place.
    That was a short history lesson without the super specifics that 
are needed by a judicial system. Most probably, Microsoft developed 
certain technical internal quirks that leaned towards locking 
competition out of using their products. However, partnerships could 
be developed with the competition, with Microsoft in the drivers 
seat. Further, the Microsoft non-tech negotiators and executives 
probably started to take over the dealing 100% rather than allowing 
the techs to help. The non-tech Microsoft negotiators dealt for some 
greater advantages. This caused their competitors to finally decide 
that there was enough evidence to sue Microsoft for unfair 
competitive. You will note that I have not included details much 
less generalizations about any other company except Microsoft. Now 
may be the time to include my opinion. During the trail, charges 
were supported by specific details that were answered by Microsoft. 
The trouble is that the other companies were performing many of the 
practices in question as well. A wash. However, the charges that 
were difficult to defend was aggressive correspondence and proposed 
partner agreements that were clearly in favor of Microsoft. There is 
not one of us that hasn't attended a ``Kick ass'' meeting 
causing us to compete more aggressively but the meeting speakers 
didn't say ``catch your opponent bent over and strike their 
posterior with your foot''. To access the judgment, one would 
have to say that the DoJ did not find enough evidence to support all 
of the antagonist claims but found evidence that the computer 
industry may be too complicated to control with today's laws.
    When peacetime competition is declared, those who choose to 
participate do so voluntarily. They do this in the belief that they 
know the game and that it will be conducted in a fair and bounded 
manor. As we have all seen, most games mature and change as the 
skill level and nature of the competitors change.
    The change is a natural result of maturation, because we want 
and in fact need to improve. However, when competition is performed 
outside the bounds of the game, the violator of the rules, unless 
penalized, will win.
    It is fairness that is at stake and the belief that it is the 
cornerstone of justice. The People, Department of Justice, and all 
the litigants want fairness. I believe that It is in this spirit 
that a judgment was delivered that is more a warning than a penalty 
to all who would participate in the game.



MTC-00033577

From: Dave Marker
Date: 1/28/02 8:26am
    As a software engineer, I am most upset by article III. section 
J. In my professional oppinion J-1(a) can be used by Microsoft to 
withold any API they choose: who determines what will compromise 
security?
    Witholding APIs is the unfair advantage an operating system 
vendor may abuse to stifle competition. In fact, this method is in 
part responsible for Microsoft's ability to crush competitors out of 
the market (two examples are WordPerfect and Netscape Navigator).
    The provision is reasonable in the regaurd that everyone wants 
computer operating systems to be secure, and engineers in general 
want to prevent piracy of their work. This is the wrong way to 
provide it. There is a saying in the computer security industry: 
``there is no security through obscurity''. Security is 
not gauranteed by hiding applicable APIs, security is achieved by 
solid design and implementation. Any security problem in any 
operating system is a result of poor design or implementation and 
does not deserve court protection, it deserves to be fixed! The code 
red and other high profile worms that attacked computers running 
Microsoft Windows did not do so by using published APIs any way. 
Hackers are willing to take time to discover and reverse engineer 
what they require to do damage, it is competition must get to the 
market timely and suffers if it can not.
    Similarly, if anti-piracy APIs are done correctly, there is no 
need to fear publishing them. Good systems rely upon mathematics; 
not upon keeping the algorithm secret (A well known example is the 
RSA crypto system). Given that there is no technical reason for for 
article III. section J-1a, I can only assume this provision exists 
for Microsoft to arbitrarily decide which APIs it doesn't want other 
vendors to know about (and hence Microsoft won't have to compete 
with them). Or Microsoft wants to slow down (but not prevent 
hackers) and not alert consumers to flaws in their product. 
Microsoft, should not, nor any other software vendor, be given the 
right to make buggy software.
    Since properly designed and written APIs do not need secrecy J-
2, especially J-2(d) is

[[Page 30138]]

just providing Microsoft the means to track their competitors 
progress. Why should Microsoft get to license APIs (which it can 
arbitrarily choose as provided by J-1) and hence gain revenue and 
information about time to market from their competition?
    With the exception of J-1(b), this is not an acceptable remedy, 
and will not prevent future abuse.
    Thank you,
    David Marker



MTC-00033578

From: Traci L. Slatton
To: Attorney General John Ashcroft
Date: 1/28/02 9:03am
Subject: Microsoft antitrust case
110 Riverside Drive Apt. 14E
New York, NY 10024-3734
January 24, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am pleased to know that after the government's long, three-
year antitrust litigation against Microsoft, a settlement was 
reached in November of 2001. I support the settlement, which seems 
fair, reasonable, and responsible.
    Allowing Microsoft to concentrate on its business now, while 
complying with the new restrictions of the settlement, gives them 
the opportunity to innovate more than ever. Innovation is certainly 
good for the economy, especially in the tech sector, which has been 
hit hard the last couple of years.
    Starting with an upcoming version of Windows XP, users will be 
more easily able to delete portions or features of Windows (or at 
least access to them), and replace them with competing software. 
Computer makers no longer need fear higher prices for Windows 
licenses if they also ship other operating systems, or if they 
install Windows in ways to promote non-Microsoft applications.
    That certainly sounds as if it should satisfy complaints from 
critics. I see this settlement as not only fair, but also a good 
thing for the economy, benefiting consumers and competitors with new 
options, and giving industry a chance to grow again. I urge you to 
support it.
    Sincerely,
    Traci Slatton
    CC: Representative Jerrold Nadler



MTC-00033579

From: James Houston
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 9:59am
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement
----- Original Message -----
From: James Houston
To: [email protected]
Cc: Diane Feinstein ; Barbara Boxer
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 9:57 AM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I hope you can settle this suit ASAP. It has gone on to long and 
continued litigation is harmful to our economy, due to the 
disruptions in the software industry.
    Microsoft is guilty of only trying to put the best product on 
the market. I've been a software user for over 20 years now and have 
never felt I was forced to use only a Microsoft version of a 
program. I have tried several others over the years and have always 
returned to Microsoft versions, because they are better. Would you 
want to be forced to buy a KIA vs: a Toyota?. Netscape was a big 
thing. I tried it for two years and the switched back to MSN. I use 
earthlink as my browser and not MSN's browser. This was a conscious 
decision and executed in a free market. I did not fell forced to use 
MSN's browser.
    Did breaking up AT&T really help us? We don't know where we 
are getting our long distance service most of the time. And rates 
for LD phone service. You could write another book about that.
    Why don't you devote your efforts to clarifying the up and down 
fluctuations of the oil and gas market?
    That would be something the consumer would really be interested 
in.
    These state attorney generals are just looking for political 
headlines so they can be considered for state governors jobs. What 
is the average consumer really going to get out of a settlement 
penalizing Microsoft? Look at the Ag'S track records. How many 
governors were previously AG's?
    Please give us a break and end this Microsoft ``witch 
hunt'' now.
    James M. Houston
    [email protected]
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033580

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 10:02am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am in agreement with the Microsoft Settlement. I think that 
the ettlement is fair and just and should be SETTLED AS IS!
    Carolyn Cusick
    17 Starr Drive Dr.
    Enfield, NH 03748
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033581

From: Willis Langford
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 10:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Willis Langford
3579 Santa Maria Street
Oceanside, CA 92056-3903
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Willis S. Langford



MTC-00033582

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 10:18am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    It is time to end this law suit. The people did not suffer from 
Microsoft integrating the browser or in essence offering it free. In 
fact the only suffering on the part of the people was the amount of 
tax payer money spent by the government on the case. The settlement 
that is there now is in the best interest of the American people and 
the technology industry.

[[Page 30139]]



MTC-00033583

From: Chuck Hellar
To: us dept of justice
Date: 1/28/02 10:22am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The settlement between Microsoft, the DOJ and the nine states is 
very fair. Microsoft pays a large price but the greater good is done 
by providing the ``at risk'' to have computers and have a 
chance to pull themselves up and be part of the mainstream.
    The only complaints from consumers are from the Class Action 
attorneys that want a quick buck. The main complaints are from the 
competitors who are unable to compete in the marketplace. The courts 
should not be the place to rectify poor management, the marketplace 
should. So continue to fight strongly for this settlement.
    Chuck Hellar



MTC-00033584

From: Richmond Perley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:04am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richmond Perley
5262 Kensington High St
Naples, FL 34105-5651
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richmond Perley



MTC-00033585

From: Alexander Belyaev
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/28/02 11:07am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Department of Justice:
    We all know about recent dot com bubble. Whom to blame for it? 
My feelings are that if somebody decides to find whom to blame, they 
may say that it was Microsoft whom to blame for it and all 
consequest losses in many people's investments during these boom 
years.
    U.S. Government should settle its case with Microsoft and stop 
blaming Microsoft for everything that this company was accused. 
Microsoft cannot be scapegoat for all other people's problems. 
Microsoft allows US people to enjoy the best IT innovations and 
standards in the world and leads true software technology 
development and innitiaves.
    US IT sector is a very competitive industry and already allows 
any company to succeed in providing best services and goods and 
making good money. The dot com bubble busted because people promised 
a lot and could not deliver. Please let Microsoft to continue 
delivering its products that consumers want and please settle your 
case with this company.
    Sincerely,
    Alexander Belyaev
    3714 West Bertona Street
    Seattle, WA 98199-1914



MTC-00033586

From: John Roop
To: john ascroft
Date: 1/28/02 11:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    The Department of Justice was absolutely wrong in wanting to 
slice Microsoft into separate parts. Three years have produced 
public resentment and gravely hurt the computing industry, all for 
the benefit of those who won't ever be able to compete with 
Microsoft. The settlement Microsoft agreed to with the federal 
government must go forward. It is more than generous, and is 
obviously better than forcing Microsoft back into court, where the 
only winners are the attorneys representing both sides of this case.
    Microsoft concedes to give up more than enough to promote far 
more competition among the computer makers and software developers 
who want a more level playing field. Agreeing to open Windows for 
further application development, Windows and non-Windows alike, will 
produce far more innovations than ever before, and will show the 
consumer that they are not at the whim of this industry giant, 
creating more individually-based options and configurations.
    I urge the Department of Justice to see to it that Microsoft is 
given unprejudiced consideration by allowing them to return to 
business NOW. Do not continue to waste the incredible innovation and 
efforts of Microsoft, by choking them in more court proceedings. 
They have been the most industrious and prolific business since that 
of Ford Motors. The ramifications are far reaching, for the better 
good, by supporting the position of this settlement with Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    John



MTC-00033587

From: Jim Prendergast
To: DOJ comments
Date: 1/28/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Americans for Technology Leadership Tunney Act Submission On 
behalf of Americans for Technology Leadership (), I am writing to express our support 
for the bipartisan settlement reached between your department, 
Microsoft and nine of the state attorneys. As an organization that 
represents thousands of consumers, as well as numerous technology 
companies and trade associations, we believe this settlement is a 
tremendous step forward. It accurately addresses the finding of the 
Court of Appeals and allows Microsoft and the rest of the industry 
to get back to developing new technologies.
    This settlement is the result of extremely hard work on the part 
of many individuals from Microsoft, the Department of Justice and 
the state attorneys general, as well as the mediators. Everyone had 
to make concessions in order to bring this chapter to a close and 
let the technology industry get back to work.
    I would also like to commend the Department of Justice for their 
efforts during the settlement process. ATL has always been concerned 
with the level of involvement in

[[Page 30140]]

the case by Microsoft's competitors. Assistant Attorney General 
Charles James echoed these concerns in November.
    ``Some of the loudest and most vocal criticism has come 
from some of Microsoft's competitors,'' said (Antitrust Chief 
Charles) James, without naming the corporate critics, which include 
AOL Time Warner Inc., Sun Microsystems Inc. and Real Networks Inc. 
``I don't think we have ever had competitors be quite so 
aggressive in asking that we serve their interests. Our job as 
antitrust enforcers is not to level the playing field mid-
game.'' James distinguished between the ``real Microsoft 
case'' and ``Microsoft, the public spectacle.'' He 
said the appeals court's ruling that Microsoft illegally protected 
the monopoly its Windows operating system enjoys doesn't support the 
``broad-scale emasculation of the company'' that rivals 
sought.
    November 17, 2001
    Bloomberg News,
    Resisting the fierce lobbying attempts by these companies could 
not have been easy, but your perseverance paid off as evidenced by a 
reasonable settlement that addresses the concerns found by the Court 
of Appeals. I'm sure you will receive several comments from well-
known commentators such as Judges Kenneth Starr and Robert Bork. 
Their work on behalf of Microsoft's competitors is impressive, but 
it differs from the feelings of the millions of consumers and the 
thousands of small technology companies who have been hurt by this 
case.
    The American public has always believed that this case should 
have been settled or brought to a close and that they have 
overwhelmingly supported the settlement that was reached. Polling 
commissioned by our organization has found that in July over 70% of 
the American believed that it was time for this case to come to an 
end. Since the settlement was reached similar numbers have supported 
the agreement and found it to be ``fair and reasonable.'' 
These views have been found by a number of other polls conducted by 
Gallup, Ipsos-Reid, and other organizations.
    Countless members of Congress from both parties, who came out in 
support of the agreement as well as many newspaper editorial pages 
from across the ideological and geographic spectrum, have echoed 
these sentiments. A fair and reasonable settlement is clearly 
preferable to continued litigation. The case against Microsoft has 
already gone on for nearly four years and has cost both Microsoft 
and the government millions of dollars. The litigation has caused 
Microsoft and the entire technology industry to focus on litigation, 
instead of creating better products and serving the needs of 
consumers. Given the state of the economy, the last thing we need is 
continued litigation.
    The settlement reached in this case is a responsible agreement, 
which puts this entire case behind us. It addresses specific 
findings of the Court of Appeals and in some cases imposes 
restrictions even beyond those findings. In fact, Attorney General 
Ashcroft pointed out that this settlement ``exceeds the kind of 
relief that was signaled in the Court of Appeals opinion of earlier 
this year.''
    Many corporate rivals of Microsoft had hoped that remedies 
imposed on the company would be much more far-reaching and extreme 
for their own interests, they are simply not called for given the 
ruling by the Court of Appeals and by the standards of antitrust 
law. Our antitrust laws and our courts are not supposed to be used 
by a few powerful companies to harm their rivals and do to them in 
the courts what they cannot do in the marketplace. By attempting to 
scuttle settlement, these companies choose litigation over 
innovation.
    While the parties have agreed to this settlement in full, I 
would be remiss if I did not point out that there are elements of 
this settlement that do cause concern. The establishment of the 3-
person technical review committee is the closest we have come to 
regulation of innovation in this industry.
    It's unprecedented that this panel will be housed at Microsoft's 
headquarter. It may also investigate any complaint received by 
interviewing any Microsoft employee it deems relevant. This kind of 
power will impact the way Microsoft does business.
    We hope that with this panel in place, Microsoft will be able to 
develop products and move them to the market in a timely manner. As 
this case has shown, technology moves at the speed of light. This 
country has benefited from the pace of technological development. 
Whether a rapid series of upgrades available for operating systems, 
or the increase in usefulness coupled with a significant decline in 
price that allowed millions of people the ability to take advantage 
of the digital revolution, the entire country has benefited from the 
speed at which this industry produces products. The role this review 
committee plays will be key to this settlement working in a positive 
manner and not a negative one.
    It should not be open to abuse by competitors in an effort to 
stymie Microsoft's ability to develop new products nor should it 
move beyond its scope of review called for in the settlement. Any 
delay in the development process at Microsoft will hurt consumers. 
Denial of technological innovation will increase the cost for 
consumers. These costs will be out of pocket as Microsoft will be 
forced to pass the cost of compliance on to consumers in the form of 
price hikes. And there will be costs associated with a loss of 
productivity. One of the reasons we witnessed a ``boom'' 
in our economy is the last 10 years was because of the tremendous 
productivity gains our economy realized as the result of technology. 
We must ensure that these gains are still possible by allowing 
technology to reach market in a short period of time.
    Another area of concern is the wide latitude that OEM's will be 
given when it comes to the design of the desktop. This stipulation 
can result in more competitors'' products available on the 
desktop as consumer work more closely with OEM to customize their 
operating systems. While allowing for more choices in software 
during the out of box experience can be beneficial for consumers, 
there is concern that the desktop will become nothing but a source 
of revenue for computer manufacturers. Cluttering the desktop with 
icons of the highest bidders, while good for some OEM's bottom line, 
could have a negative impact on the computing experience for 
consumers. One of the key developments in computing that led to 
widespread use was the transition from DOS to a graphical user 
interface (GUI). With an operating system that made the interaction 
simpler for the user, more computers were sold.
    Increases in the usability of computers and decreases in price 
are just two factors that caused millions of consumers to have 
access to one or more computers. We need to be sure that computers 
remain easy to use so that we can continue the wide adoption rate we 
have seen in the last ten years. Littering the desktop may cause 
confusion and lead to a negative experience.
    Noting these concerns we still believe that, on balance, this is 
a good settlement. This case has consumed millions of taxpayer 
dollars while having a direct negative effect on consumers. 
Investors have lost billions as pension funds and investment 
accounts have been devastated by the decline in the tech sector. The 
uncertainty surrounding this case is evident in the chart detailing 
the stock performance of some major technology companies involved in 
the case. Everyone has suffered to some extent. While this case is 
not the only factor in the tech sector's decline, it has played a 
role.
    Much has been written about the tremendous impact the collapse 
of Enron has had on the markets and investors. The chart just shows 
you that Enron is a drop in the bucket compared to what has happened 
to technology investors. On behalf of our members and our coalition 
partners, we encourage the Department of Justice to continue its 
tremendous efforts on behalf of settlement and hope you urge the 
District Court to approve this settlement in the public interest.
    Jim Prendergast
    Executive Director
    Americans for Technology Leadership
    1413 K Street NW 12th Floor
    Washington, DC 20005
    202-835-2030
    202-318-7803, fax



MTC-00033588

From: David Burgess
To: Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:40am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ms. Renata B. Hesse, Esq.
Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
January 27, 2002
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Re: Proposed Final Judgment (Microsoft Antitrust Case)
    I am writing to submit my comments on the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment in the civil antitrust case, United States of America vs. 
Microsoft Corp. I have read the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, the 
Complaint and Stipulation in the case, as well as the Competitive 
Impact Statement, and other documents and decisions related to this 
case. I urge the Department of Justice to settle this case on the 
proposed terms of settlement, and urge the Court to accept this 
settlement as being fair, reasonable, enforceable, and in the public 
interest.

[[Page 30141]]

Public Interest Is Served

    I am one of those consumers whose interests are so frequently 
cited when antitrust and other laws are invoked, but whose actual 
opinions are so seldom sought or considered by litigants and 
commercial interests. I am not affiliated with Microsoft or any of 
its lines of business. Nor am I affiliated with any of Microsoft's 
competitors, although I have been solicited by some of them to 
oppose this proposed settlement. I write on my own behalf, and not 
as part of any organized so-called ``grass-roots'' 
lobbying campaign. Having followed this case in the media for 
several years, and having reviewed the voluminous documents on this 
case available on the DOJ website, I suspect that I will be among a 
very few individual consumers who are submitting their own comments 
on this proposed settlement, rather than repeating the conflicting 
claims, or advocating the commercial interests, of clients, 
competitors, employers, etc.

Public Interest In Ending Costly Litigation

    The proposed final judgment and settlement is fair and 
reasonable because it brings an end to a lengthy and costly 
antitrust action (perhaps the longest and costliest ever), and does 
so in a way that is enforceable. I urge the court to consider that 
the public's (and the taxpayers') interests can be served quite 
effectively when the D0J and private concerns agree to settle 
expensive litigation in a reasonable manner.
    Fortunately, we do not allow only commercial interests to 
balance the costs of proceeding against the risks of an uncertain 
case. The concept behind settling uncertain--but certainly 
costly--litigation is just as valid when the government is a 
party, as when the dispute is between two businesses. (And public 
interests can additionally be served later by alternative use of 
taxpayers, funds that otherwise would disappear in continuing costly 
litigation.)

Settlement Recognizes Technology and Velocity of Change

    The proposed settlement is also reasonable because it takes into 
account the velocity of change and innovation in the relevant 
technology markets. In fact, from the consumer's perspective, the 
relevant markets change literally every day, with each new 
innovation and technical improvement. This volume and velocity of 
change affects OEMs, computer operating and communications systems, 
routing and networking approaches, and internet applications, 
portal, service and content providers (ISPs, ICPs, OLSPs, etc.), as 
well as their ancillary software, middleware, related hardware, and 
integrated (or isolated) features. Despite the claims of some 
manufacturers and service providers, there is enormous intellectual 
competition in these markets and those making claims that innovation 
has been stifled know that is false: they know that this competition 
exists, and they themselves benefit from it every day.
    Opposition to this proposed settlement seems to be as much an 
effort to punish Microsoft for the fact that the marketplace has 
changed, as it is an effort to seek redress for Microsoft's 
wrongdoing. Personally, like millions of others, I use a broad 
variety of products and services that would be covered by the 
proposed settlement. I regularly use internet browsers manufactured 
by Netscape and by Microsoft; I have used e-mail accounts through 
both AOL and MSN; everyday I consult a wide variety of ICPs, use the 
MS operating systems, and also use Sun's products and services. My 
middleware and invisible software applications are equally 
intermixed. Through mutual funds I am probably invested in 
Microsoft, Netscape, Sun, AOL, and countless other corporations 
whose commercial prospects will be affected by this settlement, and 
by the changes in the market. This constant and extensive 
intermingling of technology and economic interest represents the 
power and reason of the marketplace, and of the millions of 
consumers who demonstrate daily that competition still remains 
vibrant amidst rapidly changing technologies.

Settlement Imposes Reasonable Penalties

    As to alleged injuries from Microsoft's marketing and 
manufacturing conduct, I have not noticed or suffered from the 
alleged predations of Microsoft, but don't doubt that some have. At 
the same time, It is evident that the primary interests opposing 
this proposed settlement today are those who seek to hold back the 
oceans and thus to stop the tides.
    No amount of litigation or monetary damages can make a non-
competitive product innovative. That product might still be 
worthwhile to someone if it is cheap enough; but it will ultimately 
be left behind by every fast-changing market. Even cheap buggy whips 
have no meaningful market, not matter how well-made they are, nor 
how committed or celebrated their designers and manufacturers may 
be.
    On the other hand, excessive litigation costs can easily make an 
innovative product too costly for consumers to use. Increasing the 
cost of a Ford's Model A by layering on litigation and legal 
expenses could have delayed the day when the automobile would 
replace the horse and buggy, but it would have done little to 
advance the public's ultimate interests. No amount of subsidy or 
economic penalty can prevent the marketplace from adopting or 
rejecting technological changes on their own merits. Moreover, I 
don't believe that the purposes of the Clayton and Sherman Acts 
would be served at all by creating expensive impediments to systems 
integration and innovation, merely to preserve a market share for 
alternative systems that marketplace forces (i.e., we consumers) 
have already rejected as lesser products or services.

Settlement Proposes Enforceable Remedies

    Finally, the proposed settlement and judgment are appropriate 
because they are enforceable. They are forward looking remedies, 
which do take account of the nature of the relevant technology 
markets. The settlement does recognize that unlawful behavior should 
be stopped, and that recompense should be demanded and paid in a way 
that advances the public's interests.
    But it does not confuse those worthy objectives with the cries 
of other OEMs, ISPs, ICP, etc. for commercial subsidies, dressed UP 
as their claims of unremitting anti-competitive behavior. The 
proposed remedies do impose a new cost on Microsoft, and therefore 
will plainly benefit Netscape, AOL, CompuServe, Sun, etc. But the 
costs will benefit consumers and the public more directly. The 
business limitations and restraints that the settlement imposes on 
Microsoft will similarly benefit the public ``in an enforceable 
way'' by assuring continued competition AND allowing continued 
innovation and integration.
    Limitations on Microsoft's business practices will also benefit 
Microsoft's competition but only to the extent that that they 
themselves are competitive. The proposed settlement does not attempt 
to create a new competitor where it does not exist, nor does it 
attempt to prop up a non-competitive business that wishes to, but 
finds it cannot, actually compete with Microsoft or any other firm.
    All in all, I believe that the Court should accept the Revised, 
Judgment and Settlement of this unique anti-trust case as being in 
the public interest.
    Proposed Final
    Sincerely yours,
    David Burgess
    Arlington, VA 22201-1037
    Note: I have also enclosed these comments as TEXT and WORD 
attachments for your convenience.
    David Burgess
    Director
    Democracy Fellows Program
    World Learning, Inc.
    1015 15th Street, NW
    Suite 750 Washington, DC
    tel. (202) 408-5420
    fax (202) 408-5397
    e-mail:
    20005
    [email protected]



MTC-00033589

From: Henry Thode
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Henry Thode
1660 Gulf Blvd.
Englewood, Fl 34223
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to

[[Page 30142]]

move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Henry F. Thode, Jr..



MTC-00033590

From: Ben Roth
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Ben Roth
1311 Stonington Dr
Youngstown, OH 44505-1657
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ben J Roth



MTC-00033591

From: David Ceton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:50am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Ceton
3310 Saw Mill Rd.
Newtown Square, PA 19073-1902
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever,

[[Page 30143]]

the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    David E. Ceton



MTC-00033592

From: David Mandel
To: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
Date: 1/28/02 11:50am
Subject: Comments regarding Microsoft Antitrust/Settlement and 
Resolution
28 January 2002
    Your Honor, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly:
    I've been involved in computing for most of my professional 
career.
--As a university faculty member specializing in mathematical 
data analysis and mathematical modeling in the 1970s and 1980s.
--As a government contractor specializing in Geographic 
Information Systems in the 1980s and 1990s.
--And currently as an project leader developing developing 
internet servers which are more secure and easier to use.
--I have also been active in the Open Source / Open Data 
movement starting in the 1970s. --I'm currently Technical 
Director of LinuxFund.org
--and President of the Portland (Oregon) Linux/Unix Group
    I use and love a number of Micro Soft products, and I often 
recommend Micro Soft products because I think some of their products 
are very good.
    On the other hand, I am very concerned about monopolies in the 
computer industry; and I do think Micro Soft is a monopoly as the 
courts have already ruled. Moreover, I do not believe any of the 
proposed settlements are sufficient to keep Micro Soft from 
continuing it's unfair business practices. Indeed, now that things 
have pretty much been settled, Micro Soft seems to feel free to once 
again threaten companies and users who don't use Micro Soft products 
exclussively. At least, these are the rumors I hear.
    For example, Micro Soft has been telling resellers to drop their 
Linux products or else they will only be allowed to handle certain 
Micro Soft products. As I understand, resellers selling Linux 
products will not be allowed to sell MS Office 2000 or the any of 
the Windows operating systems above Windows-XP. If this is true, 
this will hurt me and my employees very much as we build Linux 
server products.
    As another example, Micro Soft now provides ISP services for 
Qwest DSL customers. Since Qwest changed to Micro Soft a number of 
things have changed. People keep coming to me saying that they have 
been told that only MS Windows based computers will be supported on 
Qwest DSL. I have heard this from both Linux users and Apple users. 
Of course, this is non-sense. I assume that non-Windows computers 
will work just fine with Qwest DSL. They just won't be supported. 
However, Qwest (who is simply Micro Soft's proxy in this matter) is 
giving people the impression that they will have to change to MS 
Windows if they want to continue using Qwest; and of course they 
have little choice if they are in the middle of something like a one 
year contract for their DSL service.
    Thank you for reading my comments. I hope you are able to 
recommend a settlement which will end Micro Soft's monopolistic 
practices, and allow everyone including Micro Soft to compete on a 
fair and equal basis.
    Sincerely,
    David Mandel
    President
    Portland Linux/Unix Group
    1440 NE 59th
    Portland, Oregon 97213
    (360) 260-2066 at work
    (541) 730-5285 cell
    Also, Technical Director of LinuxFund.org which is an 
international group whose purpose is the raise funds to support 
innovative Open Source projects.



MTC-00033593

From: Clarence George
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 12:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Clarence George
2922 S Skyline Dr
Inverness, FL 34450-7422
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Clarence M. George



MTC-00033594

From: Mary N Morris
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 12:22pm
Subject: MICROSOFT
    Sirs:
    It is high time for us to haul up our britches and prune 
constrictive capitalism at the root.
    Please give America access to Microsoft. Let's make America 
sustainable!
    Sincerely
    Mary M. Morris
    501
    909 West Central
    Missoula, MT 59801
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033595

From: Telly Lovelace
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 12:41pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Telly Lovelace
126 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001-2118
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of

[[Page 30144]]

Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid additional costs 
and now be able to focus their time and resources on matters of far 
greater national significance: the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 
11, it is vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The 
parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Telly Lovelace



MTC-00033596

From: Owen Mattingly
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 12:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Owen Mattingly
2241 Monocacy Rd
Baltimore, MD 21221-1529
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change. I can also 
understand keeping a company from gouging the public, but if they 
want to give away or make their product better by adding something 
to it for free, I find that to the consumers benefit. Furthermore, 
to this point most of the high tech industry has only gotten better 
and cheaper. Oh yes, it has been through innovation and productivity 
that made it possible.
    Sincerely,
    Owen Mattingly



MTC-00033597

From: Barb Koch
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/28/02 1:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case. The settlement is 
fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's competitors to use 
Microsoft's Windows operating system to incorporate their software 
programs and will give consumers more services and products to 
choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet.
    Once again, I thank you for your decision to settle this 
unfortunate lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Barb Koch
    300 Bucklin St.
    LaSalle, IL 61301-2065
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033598

From: Nicholas Yankanich
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Nicholas Yankanich
126 Chestnut Street
Aliquippa, PA 15001-2315
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has

[[Page 30145]]

cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Nicholas A Yankanich



MTC-00033599

From: Melvin R. Blann III
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:13pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Melvin R. Blann III
17379 Chase Road
Fulton, Il 61252
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Melvin R. Blann III



MTC-00033600

From: Diane Whitlock
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Diane Whitlock
PO Box 44
Martinsville, VA 24114-0044
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost taxpayers more than $35 million, and final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case. Consumers will be able to select a variety of 
pre-installed software on their computers,and it will be easier to 
substitute competitors' products after purchase as well.
    The country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Diane C Whitlock



MTC-00033601

From: Eugene Marin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Eugene Marin
99 Bog Rd
Hillsboro, NH 03244
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this

[[Page 30146]]

agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene P. Marin



MTC-00033602

From: Richard Keene
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Keene
328 Schooner Ave.
Edgewater, Fl 32141
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard N. Keene



MTC-00033603

From: Steve Wagner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Steve Wagner
7930 So. Monaco Court
Englewood, CO 80112
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to

[[Page 30147]]

submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District 
Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Steve Wagner



MTC-00033604

From: Richard Hathaway
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Hathaway
2040 Duck Lake Rd.
Whitehall, MI 49461-9691
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard G. Hathaway



MTC-00033605

From: Greg Wolfgram
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Greg Wolfgram
8131 Mulberry Place
Dublin, CA 94568
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Greg Wolfgram



MTC-00033606

From: Betty Pawlak
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 8:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Issue
January 28, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement that was reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice is fair and reasonable, and I am in full 
support of it. The American economy is in need of all the help it 
can get, and allowing Microsoft to get out of court and turn all of 
their attention to business is a great way to help.
    The recession that we are currently in actually can be traced to 
the suit against Microsoft. The market started to slip three years 
ago when the suit was announced, and kept going down. In order to 
get out of the hole that we are in, Microsoft and the rest of the IT 
industry must perform at peak levels. The settlement encourages such 
performance by restricting retaliation from Microsoft against 
competitors who produce and promote software that competes with 
Microsoft's. The settlement also mandates that Microsoft document to 
their competitors, interface data internal to Windows. This assists 
in the compatibility between competing software firms.
    All in all, the settlement will encourage competition and be 
beneficial to the economy. I fully support the settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Balvina Pawlak
    10 Molasses Hill Road
    Lebanon, New Jersey 08833



MTC-00033607

From: Loretta Frey

[[Page 30148]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 8:27pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Loretta Frey
2506 N Hogan
Spokane, WA 99207
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Loretta Frey



MTC-00033610

From: AL BORTLES
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 10:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
AL BORTLES
2166 E. MEADOW WOOD DR.
MERIDIAN, ID 83642
January 29, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    AL BORTLES



MTC-00033611

From: Robert E Lehnherr
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 10:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert E Lehnherr
3631 South 257th Street
Kent, WA 98032-5669
January 29, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers? dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Robert E Lehnherr



MTC-00033612

From: eugene shafer
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 11:26pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
eugene shafer
78237 willowrich dr

[[Page 30149]]

palm desert, , ca 92211
January 29, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Eugene Shafer



MTC-00033613

From: Consumers for Computing Choice
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/29/02 12:01am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Plaintiff, v.Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant. STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General ELIOT SPITZER, 
et al.,
Plaintiffs, v.Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
COMMENTS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND FINAL 
JUDGEMENT SUBMITTED BY CONSUMERS FOR COMPUTING CHOICE AND OPEN 
PLATFORM WORKING GROUP

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Overview
II. The Court Should Hold Thorough Public Proceedings on Remedies 
and Provide Substantial Opportunities for Full Participation by 
Citizens and Organizations that Represent the Consumer Interest
III. The Court Should Reject the Proposed Settlement and Final 
Judgment Because It Fails to Address the All-Important Applications 
Barrier to Entry and Other Essential Elements of a Competitive 
Market in Computing Platforms
IV. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Windows Applications on 
Any Other Operating System
V. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final Judgment 
That Does Not Provide a Way to Make Microsoft Office Available on 
Any Other Operating System
VI. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Competing Productivity 
Applications on Any Other Operating System and Interoperate with 
Microsoft Applications
VII. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Internet Explorer and 
Other Microsoft Internet Applications on Any Other Operating System
VIII. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way to Run Competing Internet 
Applications on Operating System and Interoperate with Microsoft 
Applications
IX. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment That Does Not Provide a Way for Developers and Consumers to 
Remove and Replace Components of Microsoft Products with Superior or 
Special Purpose Components
X. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final Judgment 
That Does Not Deprive Microsoft of the Power to Control the 
Computing Hardware Market
XI. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment That Does Not Provide Equal Access to the Existing OEM 
Distribution Channel
XIII. The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment Less Than 10 Years in Duration
XIV.The Court Should Reject Any Proposed Settlement or Final 
Judgment That Does Not Have Very Strong Provisions for Enforcement 
and Very Serious Consequences for Violation of Disclosure 
Requirements and Other Mandates
XV.Conclusion

APPENDIXES

A. Motion for Hearing on The Issues Presented
B. Offer of Proof

I. Introduction

    As Consumers for Computing Choice stressed in the brief it filed 
with the District Court, consumers will need advanced computing 
applications to enjoy the benefits of the coming digital age. These 
applications rely on a new generation of state-of-the-art operating 
systems and microprocessors. A number of more advanced operating 
systems and related microprocessor technologies are endangered 
because of a Windows standard arising from Microsoft's misuse of its 
monopoly power.
    The Microsoft case will determine whether competition in 
information technology occurs among a diversity of innovative 
software producers or is limited to a few monolithic companies. In 
order to ensure robust competition, we propose that the Court 
include in any Final Judgment remedies that will rapidly and 
reliably erode the applications barrier to entry by enabling state 
of the art operating systems to compete on a level playing field. 
The most important of these remedies is to provide a way to enable 
the 70,000 applications supported by Windows to run on any modern 
operating system.
    Now that the Appeals Court has rejected Plaintiffs structural 
remedies, the District Court must seriously review the currently 
proposed Final Judgment to determing whether it will enable Windows 
applications to run on other operating systems. Consumers for 
Computing Choice believe it will not. The applications barrier is 
here now, it is limiting consumer choice and innovation now, and it 
can be addressed now. We urge the court to reject the proposed 
settlement and Final Judgment and replace them with a Final Judgment 
that includes remedies that provide for interoperability of Windows 
applications with any other modern operating system and other 
related interoperability.
    Our recommended remedies are directly focused on the 
applications barrier to entry, providing an essential addition to 
their proposed remedies. Microsoft's compliance with these remedies 
will create an immediate change in market incentives, opening a path 
to adoption of a number of advanced operating systems and creating 
attractive competitive opportunities for ISVs to write applications 
for these systems. In the interest

[[Page 30150]]

of robust competition, innovation, and consumer choice, the Court 
should reject the settlement and Proposed Final Judgement and 
replace it with a Final Judgment that includes these remedies.

II. Hold Thorough Public Proceedings With Consumer Participation

    The Court should hold thorough public proceedings on remedies 
and provide opportunities for full participation by citizens and 
organizations that represent the consumer interest. Robust 
competition and innovation in software are crucial to our short- and 
long-term economic recovery. No industry was more crucial to the 
economic prosperity in the 1990s. Yet the incentives for innovation 
have been destroyed by Microsoft's increasing monopolization of the 
most common categories of software. There is no incentive for any 
company to create a new operating system, productivity suite, or 
Internet browser. Computer hardware manufacturers cannot profitably 
innovate as long as Microsoft has the power to control the 
specification for microprocessor architecture and other hardware 
components. OEMs have become little more than value added resellers 
with minimal influence over design decisions. If present trends 
continue, the only incentives for innovation will be in the most 
obscure niches.
    Moreover, American prosperity in the coming century will depend 
on our ability to increase our quality of life while reducing 
resource consumption and environmental pollution. Just as machines 
supplanted physical labor in the past, software will supplant much 
of the work done by industrial-era machines in the future. During 
the last century, machines improved labor productivity by a factor 
of 40. Software has the potential to provide similarly dramatic 
improvements.
    Consumers are the major player in the computer market without a 
seat at the Microsoft and Justice Department negotiating table. In 
1974 Congress passed the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 
U.S.C. sec 16), designed to provide the public with the opportunity 
to comment on a proposed Final Judgment. This act also required the 
benefiting party, in this case Microsoft, to file a Competitive 
Impact statement (CIS) to provide essential information for the 
public. Microsoft has failed to do so.
    Former California Senator John Tunney, the author the 
legislation, filed an affidavit in this proceeding that says 
Microsoft's filing is inadequate to satisfy the clear language and 
intent of the Tunney Act. Microsoft does not reveal what its 
President Steve Balmer spoke about with Vice President Dick Chaney 
when they met. News sources report that Attorney General Ashcroft 
received campaign contributions from sources politically connected 
with Microsoft. In a similar situation with Enron, Ashcroft recused 
himself. He should do the same in this case.
    It is not possible to have the most robust and accessible 
information system without the full participation of capable 
consumers. By withholding information, Microsoft is denying 
consumers information they need. Without the information, consumers 
are handicapped in effectively pointing out Microsoft's limitations 
and failures. Consumers must be informed, and they have the right to 
be heard. These are essential developments if the desktop and 
Internet are to grow into their potential as an integrated sphere of 
rapid, accurate, and dependable communication. If Microsoft has its 
way the potential computing revolution on our doorstep will remain a 
potential. Consumers need ``Four Freedoms'' to benefit 
from a competitive market in computing platforms. The first is the 
freedom to switch to any new operating system without abandoning 
their investment in applications. The second is the freedom to 
switch to any new application without abandoning the documents and 
data they have created. The third is the freedom to replace any 
component or feature in an operating system or application with 
superior or special purpose components. The fourth is the freedom to 
switch to any new microprocessor architecture without abandoning 
their investment in an operating system.
    Microsoft denies the Four Freedoms. Its comprehensive strategy 
locks products together, excludes superior competitors, and raise 
switching costs for consumers. The Court should insist that any 
settlement or Final Judgment enables the Four Freedoms.

III. Address the Essential Elements of a Competitive Market in 
Computing Platforms

    In the early 1990s, experts recognized that the basic 
architecture of existing platforms was inadequate to meet the needs 
of the emerging digital age. This realization led to a wave of 
extraordinary innovation in computing. Visionary business leaders, 
engineers, marketers, and investors brought together their resources 
to create a wave of new products and possibilities. New operating 
systems from IBM, NeXT, and Be offered improved stability, speed, 
and application development. The PowerPC microprocessor and its 
Common Hardware Reference Platform came into service. Internet 
software like Netscape Navigator changed how people use the 
Internet. The OpenStep and Java cross-platform application 
environments enabled developers to write an application once and run 
it on multiple platforms.
    With these innovations came the promise of a new generation of 
digital media applications. Unfortunately, most of these products 
are now road kill in Microsoft's quest to seize control of the 
information superhighway. IBM's OS/2 is now a niche product 
(Findings of Fact, 46). NeXT was acquired by Apple and used to 
extend the life of the aging Macintosh platform. OpenStep for Intel 
and Open Step for Windows were removed from Apple's price list 
shortly after the so-called normalization of relations between 
Microsoft and Apple in 1997. Java's potential has been diminished by 
Microsoft's efforts to introduce an incompatible version. Netscape's 
market share has continued to decline since it was acquired by 
America Online.
    More recently, while the current case was underway, Microsoft 
drove Be from the operating system market by threatening computer 
makers who had agreed to bundle Be as a second operating system. 
Microsoft threatened prohibitive increases in Windows licensing fees 
and refused to allow installation of a boot loader that would allow 
consumers running Windows to reboot their computers into the Be 
operating system. The state-of-the-art Be technology was sold to 
Palm for the fire sale price of $11 million, approximately one day 
of Microsoft profits.
    The market conditions needed to protect competition, innovation, 
and consumer choice are straightforward. Competition must be a la 
carte, no less fine-grained than the process of innovation. 
Everything must be able to run on everything. Developers must be 
free to remove, replace and combine components, and compete on the 
merits of each component. This will ensure robust competition, with 
innovators vying to improve components and vendors competing to 
assemble them in different combinations. There will be little 
competition or dynamism in the market for platform software if 
neither innovators nor users can replace anything without having to 
replace everything. No company or alliance can replace Wintel and 
its all its third party products at the drop of a hat.
    Because Netscape had no applications barrier to entry to 
protectit, it was ported to more than fifteen different operating 
systems (Findings of Fact, 69). Operating system vendors 
differentiated the graphical user interface into a separate layer, 
allowing the application environment to use the graphical interface 
of the host operating system on which it was running and to permit 
special interfaces. This occurs naturally in a competitive market. 
Everyone wants his software to run on every other platform, and 
everyone wants software from others to run on his platform. 
Competitors have incentives to cooperate, establish standards, and 
publish interfaces to ensure interoperability. In a truly 
competitive market, there would be a wide variety of component 
combinations. Operating systems with multiple application 
environments would be common. Developers would be able to write for 
the application environments with the best capabilities for their 
specific application. Consumers would be able to choose operating 
systems and application environments with the best capabilities for 
their most demanding applications.
    A competitive market would provide companies real incentives to 
pursue breakthrough innovations. Small producers with an idea for 
one great application or one great component would have a chance to 
bring it to market. Network effects would be counterbalanced by the 
benefits of cross-platform application environments. A number of 
operating systems would have substantial market share. Absent an 
applications barrier to entry, developers would promote these 
benefits. Consumers would readily recognize these benefits and 
demand them.
    This is not speculative. Automobile manufacturing and customer 
service have substantial network effects, yet Chevrolet, Ford, 
Toyota and Honda, Porsche, and Ferrari still have dealer and service 
networks. They allow third-party products to enhance performance.
    Among the most important breakthroughs in computing is the fact 
that operating systems now rely on modular design. A

[[Page 30151]]

modern operating system includes a core operating system that 
schedules tasks for processing. Three basic layers correspond to the 
basic functions of an operating system recognized by the Court 
(Findings of Fact, 2 and 7). In a modular operating system each of 
these major layers includes a number of distinct modules. Software 
developers can easily add or replace modules with superior or 
special purpose components without hidden code dependencies 
interfering with the rest of the system.
    Another important benefit of modern operating system 
architecture is that it permits multiple application environments to 
run well on the same core operating system. This will allow 
consumers have an older application environment to run legacy 
applications and a modern application environment to perform 
demanding tasks, without maintaining two large, complex operating 
systems on one computer (Findings of Fact, 49).
    In an important sense this case is about the important 
contributions multiple application environments on a single core 
operating system can make to competition, innovation, and consumer 
choice. Netscape Navigator and Sun's Java both provided cross-
platform application environments that could run along with the 
standard application environment on different operating systems. If 
similarly adaptable applications are allowed to thrive in a truly 
free market, consumers will enjoy smooth migration of older 
technology and early adoption of the new technology crucial to full 
participation in the digital age.

IV. Provide a Way to Run Windows Applications on Any Other Operating 
System

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment that does not provide a way to run Windows applications on 
any other operating system. The applications barrier to entry is the 
central issue of this case. The installed base of 70,000 Windows 
applications is by far the most formidable element of this barrier. 
A competing operating system must have a large and varied base of 
compatible applications to reassure consumers that it will meet 
their computing needs (Findings of Fact, 40). The massive installed 
base of Windows applications makes this prohibitively difficult and 
expensive (Findings of Fact, 46). As the Court recognized, the 
developer of a rival operating system could in theory circumvent 
this barrier by cloning the Windows APIs so that the applications 
written for Windows would then also run on that system (Findings of 
Fact, 52). The new competitor would not be able to translate this 
into practice, however, because it would never have all the current 
Windows APIs.
    Widespread availability of a Windows Application Environment on 
all other operating systems would reduce this barrier to entry. A 
Windows Application Environment would be similar in structure and 
function to a Java Runtime Environment (Findings of Fact, 73). It 
would break the dependent relationship between Windows and the 
70,000 applications written for the Windows APIs and allow those 
applications to work with other operating systems. This reduced 
barrier to entry would immediately encourage investment in the 
development and marketing of operating systems. Consumers could 
choose a superior core operating system with a modern application 
environment based on its features, without worrying about legacy 
Windows applications. This would substantially reduce the costs of 
migrating to other operating systems. No other remedy would do so 
much to restore competition, innovation, and consumer choice. IBM 
recognized the important benefits of a Windows Application 
Environment when it invested tens of millions of dollars to clone 
the Windows APIs and enable Windows applications to run on its OS/2 
operating system (Findings of Fact, 46). Sun Microsystems made a 
similar investment to develop a Windows Application Environment for 
its Solaris operating system.
    A number of third party software developers have made serious 
efforts to implement the Windows APIs on other operating systems. 
The open source WINE (Wine Is Not an Emulator) project has 
implemented a sufficient percentage of the Windows APIs on the Linux 
operating system to run selected Windows applications. A WINE 
project for Apple's OS X operating system is also in progress. The 
BeWine project, organized by a small group of software developers 
who needed access to the installed base of Windows applications, 
made substantial progress implementing Windows APIs on the state-of-
the- art Be operating system. This project has been shelved since 
1999 when Microsoft drove Be from the operating system market. A 
network of Be developers around the world is now working to 
resurrect the Be operating system, and BeWine will be one of its 
highest priorities. The new Lindows operating system is implementing 
Windows APIs as a way for consumers to run some of the major Windows 
applications on Linux. A preliminary version of Lindows will soon be 
released to the public.
    In all of these projects, the major obstacle is the lack of 
complete and accurate disclosure of the Windows APIs and related 
technical specifications. Moreover, Microsoft frequently changes 
APIs. Often these are gratuitous changes intended only to frustrate 
interoperability. Yet Microsoft allows implementation of Windows 
APIs when it serves the company's interests. At least two ISVs, 
Mainsoft and Bristol, offer tools that implement the Windows APIs on 
Unix operating systems. They do it in markets where Microsoft is not 
the dominant vendor; i.e., in markets where Microsoft favors 
interoperability. These implementations work well because Mainsoft 
and Bristol have the benefit of Microsoft source code licenses, and 
need not be concerned about the completeness or accuracy of its API 
disclosure.
    There are three major ways for the Court to ensure the 
availability of the installed base of Windows applications on all 
other operating systems.

Mandatory Porting

    The first approach is to order Microsoft to offer mandatory 
ports of a Windows Application Environment to other operating 
systems. The initial ports should be to the five operating systems 
offered by competitors mentioned in the Findings of Fact. This 
approach should require native and optimized ports that work well 
with the unique features of the host operating systems. An advantage 
of this approach is that it appropriately shifts the burden for 
reducing the applications barrier to entry from disadvantaged 
competitors to Microsoft.
    These ports would be a very modest burden for a company as large 
as Microsoft. Next Software, a company with fewer than 400 employees 
and less than $50 million annual revenue, ported the OpenStep 
operating system to four hardware platforms, and the OpenStep 
application environment to four other operating systems. Third party 
applications written for OpenStep ran properly on all these 
platforms without additional porting. The entire project cost 
approximately $10 million. While the Windows code base is larger and 
more commingled, that is hardly an excuse for Microsoft to escape 
any additional burden that may result. These costs will be modest 
compared to the immense monopoly rents Microsoft has enjoyed as a 
result of the applications barrier to entry. Microsoft should be 
required to sell these products to OEMs, ISVs, IHVs, and end users 
at a price not to exceed fifty per cent of the lowest price for any 
Windows Operating System Product. There would also need to be 
provisions for adding new operating systems at minimum cost to their 
developers.
    A disadvantage of mandatory ports is the risk that Microsoft 
would likely attempt to delay progress or produce low-quality ports. 
Strong enforcement and serious sanctions for violations would be 
necessary to ensure compliance.

Mandatory Licenses to Port Windows Application Environment

    Another approach would be to order Microsoft to offer licenses 
to port Windows Application Environments to any other operating for 
which its developer or a third party requests one. The advantage of 
this approach is that developers or third parties would rapidly be 
able to develop high quality products to market on any operating 
system. The developers of new and innovative operating systems 
offering the greatest potential consumer benefit are likely to have 
limited access to capital. Accordingly, a limited number of licenses 
should not be allocated by auction alone. A small number of major 
licensees could limit availability to their preferred operating 
systems and raise barriers to entry for small and innovative 
operating system developers. Moreover, Microsoft might attempt to 
control this process by encouraging compliant, though formally 
unaffiliated, ISVs to acquire licenses and limit their use to 
operating systems that present no competitive threat.
    Instead, at least one license should be issued for each 
operating system for which a port is requested by its developer or 
any third party. The initial license fee should be no more than an 
amount sufficient to cover Microsoft's administrative costs 
associated with licensing. Microsoft should then receive a per unit 
royalty from ISVs, IHVs, and OEMs not to exceed twenty-five per cent 
of the

[[Page 30152]]

lowest royalty paid for any Windows Operating System Product.

Mandatory Disclosure of Interfaces and Technical Information

    The third approach is to order that Microsoft fully disclose all 
of the functional specifications for APIs, other interfaces, and 
technical information necessary for competent software developers to 
implement their own Windows Application Environments on any other 
operating system. The advantage of this approach is that it would 
leverage the efforts of existing projects working to create Windows 
Application Environments.
    The required disclosure should include the right to the 
technical information about file systems needed to read the files on 
a disk partition on which Microsoft products are installed. This 
will permit consumers to install multiple operating systems on the 
same computer or home network.
    This approach should also require Microsoft to grant a license 
of any intellectual property rights it claims are necessary to 
produce and sell these products. The license should be royalty-free 
and available on nondiscriminatory terms. The court should make it 
clear that `nondiscrimatory'' requires that open source 
projects and their commercial derivatives are entitled to all of the 
benefits of these disclosures and licenses, provided that no 
Microsoft source code is incorporated into open source products.
    Finally, Microsoft should be prohibited from including in its 
licensing terms any requirement that its software not be installed 
on computers with other operating systems. This will make consumers 
free to install and use existing Microsoft applications on other 
operating systems.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States offer 
significant though partial steps toward this third approach. Section 
4(a) (i) of their Remedial Proposal requires Microsoft to disclose 
all APIs, Technical Information and Communications Interfaces that 
Microsoft employs to enable each Microsoft (emphasis added) 
application to Interoperate with Microsoft Platform Software 
installed on the same Personal Computer.
    The Plaintiff Litigating States clearly recognized the 
importance of disclosing these interfaces. The APIs Microsoft 
employs to enable Microsoft applications to interoperate with 
Windows include almost all the APIs it employs to enable Windows 
applications written by third parties to interoperate with Windows. 
However, there are a small number of APIs that are called only by 
third party Windows applications. Disclosure of all of these APIs is 
essential in order to reduce the applications barrier to entry and 
enable consumers to run any of the 70,000 existing Windows 
applications on any other operating system.
    It is likely that the Plaintiff Litigating States did not 
distinguish between these sets of APIs and intended that this remedy 
include the APIs used for all Windows applications. Nevertheless, 
the Court should insist that disclosure include all the APIs. The 
remedy could easily be changed to reflect this by requiring that 
Microsft disclose all APIs, Technical Information and Communications 
Interfaces that Microsoft employs to enable all Microsoft and/or 
third party Windows applications to Interoperate with Microsoft 
Platform Software installed on the same Personal Computer.
    The Windows APIs are the centerpiece of Microsoft's monopoly 
power. The Court should now use that monopoly power to reverse the 
effects of its abuse and move Microsoft toward open, cross-platform 
competition. This would allow the market to begin to recover. The 
Court noted (Findings of Fact, 29) that it would take several years 
for middleware and the applications it supports to evolve into a 
competitive threat to Windows. This has yet to occur. Moreover, the 
prospects are worse than they were in 1995 because Microsoft now 
dominates the market for browsers and may be able to leverage that 
dominance.
    The Court should correct for this market failure by ensuring 
that any Final Judgment contains at least one of the remedies that 
will enable the installed base of 70,000 applications that comprise 
the applications barrier to entry to run on any other operating 
system.

V. Make Native Ports of Microsoft Office Available on Any Other 
Operating System

VI. Provide a Way to Make Native Ports of Microsoft Office Available on 
Any Other Operating System

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment that does not provide a way to make native ports of 
Microsoft Office available on any other operating system. This is 
another direct and certain way to address the applications barrier 
to entry. In a competitive market, many consumers will choose 
operating systems because their features and benefits are necessary 
for advanced multimedia, networking, or other digital-age 
applications. Nevertheless, for many consumers, Office remains their 
one indispensable application. Its importance is highlighted by its 
role in the controversies between Microsoft and IBM and Microsoft 
and Apple. Unfortunately, the dependencies between Microsoft 
applications and Windows are another formidable element of the 
applications barrier to entry. Office and Internet Explorer are now 
dominant in most work environments, and most consumers need 
compatible applications at home. Office has proprietary file 
formats, APIs, and other features that add dependencies. If there is 
to be real competition in operating systems and other platform 
software, the dominance of Microsoft Office applications must not be 
allowed to favor Windows over other competitors.
    Cross-platform ports of Office applications will ensure that 
consumers and businesses are free to choose alternative operating 
systems based on their distinct features and benefits. Porting 
Office to competing platforms is more certain and immediate than 
relying on other ISVs to develop productivity applications for them. 
Since their market share is presently low, there are few incentives 
for ISVs to write for them. There are two major ways for the Court 
to ensure the availability of Office applications on all other 
operating systems.

Mandatory Porting

    The first approach is to order Microsoft to offer mandatory 
ports of its Office applications to other operating systems. The 
initial ports should be to the five operating systems offered by 
competitors mentioned in the Findings of Fact. This approach should 
require native and optimized ports that work well with the unique 
features of the host operating systems.
    An advantage of this approach is that it appropriately shifts 
the burden for reducing the applications barrier to entry from 
disadvantaged competitors to Microsoft. The price charged for these 
products to ISVs, IHVs, OEMs and end users would need to be limited 
to the comparable price of Office for Windows. There would also need 
to be provisions for adding new operating systems at minimum cost to 
their developers. A disadvantage of mandatory ports is the risk that 
Microsoft would likely attempt to delay progress or produce low-
quality ports. Although mandatory ports of complex Silcon Graphics 
software worked well, strong enforcement and serious sanctions for 
violations would be necessary to ensure that Microsoft complies.
    The specialized Macintosh Business Unit established by Microsoft 
after the 1997 agreement to continue the port of Office for 
Macintosh has demonstrated, with upgrades to Office and Internet 
Explorer, that Microsoft can optimize ports to take advantage of 
features not available on Windows. This optimization made a 
noticeable difference in the user experience and is one of the few 
positive results of the ``normalization'' between 
Microsoft and Apple.
    Microsoft should be required to continue its port of Office to 
Apple operating systems. The existing agreement to port Office to 
the Macintosh operating system expires this year. Microsoft could 
again hold Apple hostage and demand concessions in exchange for 
continuing this port. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff 
Litigating States require this. However, Apple now has a modern 
operating system with an advanced object- oriented application 
environment called Cocoa. Apple asked Microsoft to port to this 
application environment in 1997 and Microsoft declined. This was a 
decisive factor in delaying the release of the new OS X operating 
system and forcing Apple to add an interim application environment 
to that operating system. Microsoft should be required to support 
the most advanced application environment on any operating system to 
which it ports Office. Any settlement or Final Judgment should 
require that Microsoft port Office to the Cocoa application 
environment within three years in order to allow Apple to shift the 
orientation to this new technology.

Mandatory Licenses to Port Office

    Another approach would be to order Microsoft to offer licenses 
to port its Office applications to any other operating system for 
which its developer or a third party requests one. The advantage of 
this approach is that developers or third parties would rapidly be 
able to develop high quality products to market on any operating 
system. The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff

[[Page 30153]]

Litigating States offer significant though partial steps toward this 
approach. Section 14(b) of the Remedial Proposal submitted by the 
states requires that Microsoft offer to sell at auction at least 
three licenses to port Office to other operating systems without 
further royalty beyond the auction price. The developers of new and 
innovative operating systems offering the greatest potential 
consumer benefit are likely to have limited access to capital. 
Accordingly, a limited number of licenses should not be allocated by 
auction alone. A small number of major licensees could limit 
availability to their preferred operating systems and raise barriers 
to entry for small and innovative operating system developers. 
Moreover, Microsoft might attempt to control this process by 
encouraging compliant though formally unaffiliated ISVs to acquire 
licenses and limit their use to operating systems that present no 
competitive threat.
    Instead, at least one license should be issued for each 
operating system for which its developer or a third party requests 
one. The initial license fee should be no more than an amount 
sufficient to cover Microsoft's administrative costs associated with 
licensing. Microsoft should then receive a per-unit royalty from 
ISVs, IHVs, OEMs, and end users indexed to a specified price for 
Office.

VI. Provide a Way for Competing Productivity Applications to 
Interoperate with Microsoft Applications.

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment that does not provide a way to run competing productivity 
applications on any other operating system and interoperate with 
Microsoft applications. The importance of competition in operating 
systems is to provide superior platforms that enable the development 
of applications with richer features and compelling benefits to 
consumers. Sustaining competition in operating systems will require 
renewed competition in applications.
    Microsoft's proprietary file formats are another significant 
element of the applications barrier to entry. Their only benefit is 
to exclude competitors. A vast amount of valuable data is held 
captive in Office files. Just as consumers'' ability to carry 
over their installed base of Windows applications to new platforms 
is essential to restoring competition in the market for operating 
systems, their ability to carry over data now held captive in 
Microsoft files to new applications is essential to competition in 
the markets for applications and, therefore, operating systems.
    Any Final Judgment should require Microsoft to publish all file 
formats needed to read, write, and save Office files.
    Requiring Microsoft to publish these file formats will allow 
consumers to migrate to new (and more advanced) applications without 
losing data. This will provide ISVs with ample incentives to write 
new applications for Windows and alternative operating systems and 
ensure that, as market share grows, Microsoft applications are not 
the only ones ported to competing systems.
    Microsoft also uses its Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) 
framework and other proprietary specifications for inter-application 
communications instead of published APIs. These make it possible for 
Office applications to exchange files, data, and services with other 
Microsoft applications. These are yet another significant element of 
the applications barrier to entry. Without open interfaces, 
competing applications cannot exchange data with Office 
applications.
    Any Final Judgment should also require that Microsoft publish 
the file formats of its applications and the specification for OLE 
and other proprietary specifications needed for inter-application 
communications.
    Requiring Microsoft to publish these specifications will allow 
consumers to choose productivity applications from multiple vendors 
and still have the benefits of an integrated application suite. A 
spreadsheet from one vendor could be combined with a drawing program 
from another and a presentation program from a third. Consumers 
could then replace one program without having to purchase another 
complete suite and discard applications. This will increase 
incentives for ISVs to write applications. Since ISVs will no longer 
have to design an entire suite of software, a small ISV will be to 
able to concentrate its resources on developing a more innovative 
product for a single niche and will be able to compete more 
effectively with larger ISVs.

VII. Provide a Way to Run Internet Explorer and Other Microsoft 
Internet Applications on Any Other Operating System.

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment that does not provide a way to make native ports of 
Internet Explorer and other Microsoft Internet applications 
available on any other operating system. This is another direct and 
certain way to address the applications barrier to entry.
    For many consumers, Internet Explorer is becoming another 
indispensable application. Its importance is highlighted by its role 
in the controversies between Microsoft and IBM and Microsoft and 
Apple. Internet Explorer is now the dominant application for access 
to the World Wide Web. If there is to be real competition in 
operating systems and other platform software, the dominance of 
Microsoft Internet applications must not be allowed to favor Windows 
over other competitors. Cross-platform ports of Internet Explorer 
and other Microsoft Internet applications will ensure that consumers 
and businesses are free to choose alternative operating systems 
based on their distinct features and benefits.
    There are two major ways for the Court to ensure the 
availability of Internet Explorer and other Microsoft Internet 
applications on all other operating systems. As with Office, the 
first approach is to order Microsoft to offer mandatory ports of it 
Internet Explorer to other operating systems. All the considerations 
and provisions that apply to ports of Office should apply to 
Internet Explorer, except that the ported products should remain 
free as long as Internet Explorer for Windows is free. As with 
Office, another approach would be to order Microsoft to offer 
licenses to port Internet Explorer to any other operating system 
that requests one. Again, all the considerations and provisions that 
apply to licenses to port Office should apply to Internet Explorer, 
except that the license fees would need to be very limited since 
Explorer for Windows is a free product.
    The remedies proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating States offer a 
more comprehensive approach. Section 12 of their Remedial Proposal 
requires that Microsoft offer open source licenses to Explorer 
source code without royalty. This approach will offer other 
operating systems and consumers all the benefits that mandatory 
porting or licenses to port will offer.
    Since Microsoft's intent in offering Internet Explorer as a free 
product was central to its unlawful conduct, the open source remedy 
may be appropriate to restore competition and deprive Microsoft of 
the fruits of its unlawful conduct. There is also much less 
justification for protecting the source code of Explorer than there 
is for Office or Windows.
    Moreover, opening the source code of Internet Explorer will make 
it more difficult for Microsoft to extend its triple monopoly and 
create another set of secret de facto standards eliminating 
competition for the architecture for distributed Internet computing 
and the advanced networking applications. Any Final Judgment should 
incorporate provisions to reduce the likelihood that Microsoft will 
continue to create an ever more powerful monoculture on the web and 
gain control of cyberspace in the same way it gained control of the 
desktop.
    Nevertheless, if the Court declines to adopt the remedy proposed 
by the Plaintiff Litigating States, mandatory porting of Internet 
Explorer or mandatory licenses to port it will assist in restoring 
competition, innovation, and consumer choice in operating systems.

VIII. Provide a Way for Competing Internet Applications to Interoperate 
with Microsoft Applications.

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment that does not provide a way to run competing Internet 
applications on any other operating system and interoperate with 
Microsoft applications.
    Microsoft's proprietary Internet interfaces, file formats, media 
formats, codecs, and extensions are another significant element of 
the applications barrier to entry. Their only benefit is to exclude 
competitors. Any Final Judgment should require Microsoft to publish 
these specifications.
    Requiring Microsoft to publish them will allow consumers to 
migrate to new Internet applications. It will provide ISVs with 
ample incentives to write new Internet applications and ensure that 
Microsoft applications are not the only ones ported to competing 
systems.
    Microsoft is also using proprietary specifications for inter-
application communications instead of published APIs in its Internet 
applications. Any Final Judgment should also require that Microsoft 
publish the specifications needed for inter-application 
communications.
    Requiring Microsoft to publish these specifications will allow 
consumers to choose Internet applications from multiple vendors and 
still have the benefits of integrated Internet applications.

[[Page 30154]]

    The open source remedy proposed by the Plaintiff Litigating 
States will offer other operating systems and consumers all the 
benefits that disclosure of these specifications will offer. 
Moreover, opening the source code will make it more difficult for 
Microsoft to create an integrated Internet architecture that 
excluded applications and components from other software developers 
and deprived consumers of choice. Nevertheless, if the Court 
declines to adopt that remedy, mandatory disclosure of these 
specifications will assist in restoring competition, innovation, and 
consumer choice in operating systems.

IX. Provide a Way to for Developers and Consumers to Remove and Replace

    Components of Microsoft Products with Superior or Special 
Purpose Components. Microsoft has regularly sacrificed best 
practices, value added, and innovation to strategies that extend its 
monopoly. Resources that could be invested in product improvement or 
breakthrough innovation are consistently diverted to prevent 
developers from substituting superior components and raise the 
``switching costs'' for users who wish to replace 
Microsoft products with preferred alternatives. After years of these 
practices, an extraordinarily high proportion of the value of 
Microsoft's intellectual property is in the unpublished interfaces 
and communication protocols that exclude competitors. Microsoft's 
relentless pursuit is promoted in the guise of 
`integration.' This purported `integration' 
neither makes its software run faster than comparable competing 
software nor work more seamlessly. Indeed, the commingling of code 
from so many components into the foundations of the operating system 
is why its entire software monoculture is so vulnerable to 
instability, security breaches, and viruses. The digital age 
requires a better foundation.

X. Deprive Microsoft of the Power to Control the Computing Hardware 
Market

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment that does not deprive Microsoft of the power to control the 
computing hardware market Microsoft monopoly power has externalities 
in hardware choices as well as operating systems and applications. 
The Court found that Microsoft was able to pressure Intel to stop 
developing platform software because of Intel's dependency on 
Microsoft support for Intel microprocessors (Findings of Fact, 102). 
Since Intel is so dependent on Microsoft, Microsoft has the ability 
to influence Intel's processor designs. Intel therefore embraces 
strategies and technologies that favor Windows at the expense of 
hardware innovations that would benefit superior operating systems. 
Over the years, the technical dependencies between Windows and Intel 
processors have increased.
    These dependencies assist Microsoft in preserving the 
applications barrier to entry. Locking Windows and Intel together 
tends to lock others out of both the operating systems and 
microprocessor markets. Since the market for personal computers that 
run Windows is very profitable for Intel, these dependencies are 
``golden handcuffs'' that limit Intel's freedom to design 
the best processors. Intel's next generation processor architecture 
is burdened with numerous legacy features that would likely not be 
included if Microsoft did not insist on them, and the performance of 
the prototypes has been disappointing.
    Consumers have almost no alternatives to Intel-compatible 
personal computers. This limitation is itself a result of 
Microsoft's protection of the applications barrier to entry. 
Microsoft initially supported the Common Hardware Reference Platform 
(CHRP), an open PowerPC hardware platform that supported a number of 
alternative operating systems including Macintosh, BeOS, and 
Solaris. CHRP was an important habitat for other operating systems. 
It was also a potential path for migration from Windows to these 
operating systems, since it would have allowed consumers and 
business to switch from one system to another without having to 
purchase another computer. Accordingly, it was perhaps the most 
significant threat to the dominance of the Wintel platform. 
Microsoft abandoned its support for CHRP at a critical moment in the 
platform's development. Apple abruptly withdrew its support shortly 
after its so-called ``normalization'' of relations with 
Microsoft in 1997. Without support from Microsoft and Apple, 
critical customers lost confidence in the platform. CHRP has since 
been dormant. Its successor, the PowerPC Open Platform, is sustained 
mainly by the interest of Linux developers. Without additional 
commercial support, this exceptional platform may be never be widely 
available to consumers.
    The Court should include in any Final Judgment provisions for 
porting Windows to other hardware platforms with non-Intel 
compatible microprocessors. The Court could require that Microsoft 
port Windows to specified alternative microprocessors and recompile 
its software to run on the versions of Windows ported to those 
microprocessors. This would require the same sorts of provisions to 
ensure a quality port that mandatory ports of other software would 
require.
    The Court could alternatively order Microsoft to issue source 
code licenses for the purpose of porting Windows to any 
microprocessor for which a port is requested. Since the number of 
alternative microprocessor architectures is limited, this would 
likely only require issuance of three or four licenses. Microsoft 
should of course be entitled to receive a royalty on every unit of 
these products. The royalty should be no greater than the lowest 
royalty charged to an OEM for Intel-compatible versions of Windows.

XI. Provide Equal Access to the Existing OEM Distribution Channel

    OEMs are the most important distribution channel for operating 
systems (Findings of Fact, 54), middleware, and other software. Few 
consumers will install an alternative operating system even as a 
complement to Windows if it requires partitioning a disk drive and 
reinstalling all Microsoft software or adding another disk drive. 
Equal access to OEM distribution will level the playing field and 
restore competition.
    In 1998, while the current case was underway, Be attempted to 
persuade Microsoft drove Be from the operating system market by 
threatening computer makers who had agreed to bundle Be as a second 
operating system with prohibitive increases in Windows licensing 
fees and refusing to allow installation of a boot loader that would 
allow consumers running Windows to reboot their computers into the 
Be operating system. The Be technology was sold to Palm for $11 
million.
    Effective remedies must ensure that alternative operating 
systems and other software products that compete with Microsoft's 
monopoly products have immediate access to this distribution 
channel. The Court should require in any Final Judgment that 
Microsoft be prohibited from licensing any operating system, 
applications, or middleware to an OEM for installation on a computer 
unless each unit shipped with a Microsoft operating system also 
includes alternative software products corresponding to the 
Microsoft products installed on that computer.
    Consumers would have the opportunity to experience the benefits 
of alternative systems, and competitors who have been excluded from 
coexistence with Microsoft on OEM computers would have new 
incentives to invest. OEMs could use the choice of which competuing 
products to offer in each category to differentiate their offerings.
    This would impose no substantial financial burden on the OEMs. 
Free distributions of Linux, BeOS, BSD Unix, and other alternative 
operating systems are available. OEMs could shift responsibility for 
support for these products to the manufacturers or other interested 
parties. Consumer demand would develop for the products that offered 
the most value, and OEMs could then charge for them.

XII. Minimum Term of Any Final Judgment

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment with a term of less than ten years. The AT&T case 
indicates that, contrary to popular notions, ten years is not so 
long in a dynamic industry. The recombining of the `Baby 
Bells' began almost as soon as the Term of the Modified Final 
Judgment expired. Meanwhile, their control of the `last 
mile' of connectivity into consumer homes has enabled them to 
drive Competitive Local Exchange Carriers and residential broadband 
providers out of the market.
    One lesson from this experience is that the last mile is a 
commons that is essential for all competitors, and equal access to 
that commons may need to continue until it no longer offers any 
leverage to exclude competitors. Since interoperability remedies of 
the sort provided in these comments are essential to establishing a 
commons through which new competitors can enter markets controlled 
by Microsoft, the Court should ensure that they are maintained for 
at least a decade, or until competition in platform software is so 
robust that Microsoft no longer has the ability or incentives to 
control key interfaces.
    Some of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices originated more 
than a decade ago. The wave of anti-competitive conduct that

[[Page 30155]]

led to the filing of this case began six years ago. The magnitude of 
the damage to related markets suggests that even well-designed, pro-
competitive remedies will require a decade to restore competition 
and reverse the gains resulting from Microsoft's unlawful conduct.

XIII. Provisions for Enforcement and Consequences for Violation

    The Court should reject any proposed settlement or Final 
Judgment that does not have strong provisions for enforcement and 
serious consequences for violation of disclosure requirements and 
other mandates. The Court should appoint a Special Master to monitor 
and enforce Microsoft's compliance with the Final Judgment. The 
Court should consider the voice of the Plaintiff Litigating States, 
competitors, and consumer organizations in selecting the Special 
Master. There should be provisions for selection of a replacement if 
necessary and a way to prevent Microsoft from corrupting the 
selection process in the event of political changes.
    The Special Master must have the authority and resources to 
thoroughly monitor and enforce Microsoft's compliance with the terms 
of this Final Judgment. Most important, the Special Master will need 
full access to all of Microsoft's source code for the purpose of 
verifying the completeness and accuracy of its required disclosures. 
Access to source code in a secure facility proposed in the remedial 
proposal of the Plaintiff Litigating States does not adequately 
enable competitors to verify the completeness and accuracy of 
disclosure.
    The settlement must also provide an effective `crown 
jewel' provision that will deprive Microsoft of both the tools 
and spoils of its illegal monopoly. There must be substantial 
penalties for non-compliance. For the same reasons that protection 
of the source code during verification is so great a concern for 
Microsoft, placing the source code in the public domain would be the 
best ``crown jewel'' provision.

IV. Conclusion

    The Court should reject the proposed settlement and schedule 
public proceedings. It must The Court should reject the proposed 
settlement and schedule public proceedings. It must conduct its own 
inquiry into both the ends that proper remedies must achieve and the 
best means to achieve them.
    These proceedings should include a significant opportunity for 
consumers to participate, including the opportunity to propose 
remedies, present evidence, and to argue for correcting the effect 
of illegal monopoly. The remedies recommended in these comments 
should be given serious consideration in those proceedings. Even 
with the inclusion of these remedies in a settlement or Final 
Judgment, competing operating systems and competing software face 
uphill battles against the fruits of Microsoft's years of unlawful 
conduct.
    Competing products will still be disadvantaged by the large 
investment in training that companies and consumers have on 
Microsoft products and the great degree of familiarity information 
technology professionals have with those products. Nevertheless, 
these remedies offer the best chance to restore competition, 
innovation, and consumer choice.
    The scheduled proceedings on the Remedial Proposal submitted by 
the Plaintiff States should complement rather than replace public 
proceedings under the Tunney Act. The Court should also propose that 
the Plaintiff Litigating States incorporate these recommendations 
into a Revised Proposed Final Judgment. Although the remedies 
proposed by these states are important and should be included in any 
Final Judgment, their proposed remedies have been shaped more by the 
debate between Microsoft and its competitors than by a consumer 
voice.
    The absence of a strong consumer presence is reflected in the 
omission of some of the most basic remedies of importance to 
consumers. The absence of these remedies create the likelihood that 
the development of the information economy and culture promised by 
the potential of computer technology will remain stymied and 
undeveloped much as the telephone communicating system crept along 
at a snails pace for the nearly one hundred years of the Bell 
systems monopoly.
    Opening up the Microsoft monopoly with serious remedies that 
include the consumer interest in the final market place equation 
will make possible the next leap in communication technology, and 
with it the significant economic development, on the brink of which 
society now stands. These new developments are to the Internet as 
the Internet is to the telephone. Failure to include these consumer-
oriented remedies threatens society with economic downturns and 
cultural stagnation. We urge the court not to accept the 
economically and culturally crippling proposed final judgment.
    James S. TurnerCharles D. Brown
    ChairCounsel
    Consumer for Computing ChoiceConsumers for Computing Choice
    Drexel SprecherMichael Vlahos
    Co-ChairCo-Chair
    Open Platform Working GroupOpen Platform Working Group

APPENDIXES

A. Motion for Hearing on The Issues Presented#
1. This has been a common sense presentation#
2. Expert testimony will support it#

XIII. Interests of the Parties Submitting Comments#

A. Consumers for Computing Choice#
B.Open Platform Working Group#
B.Offer of Proof#
A. Witnesses#
B. Issues#

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff vs.Civil Action No. 
98-1232 (CKK)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
Defendant STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Plaintiffs, vs. MICROSOFT 
CORPORATION
Defendant Motion for Evidentiary Hearing
    Defendant, Microsoft Corporation by the undersigned counsel 
respectfully moves this honorable court for an evidentiary hearing 
in the above captioned matter. As grounds for the motion, which are 
more fully determined in the accompanying memorandum of points and 
authority defendant, asserts:
1. Defendant has new evidence previously not considered by the court
2. The failure of the court to hear and consider this new evidence 
would not only constitute a denial of due process and or would be 
impermissibly prejudicial to the defendant and to other parties to 
this case.

CONSUMERS FOR COMPUTING CHOICE

    Executive Board
    James S. Turner, Chair
    Consumer Interest Lawyer
    Swankin & Turner
    Charles D. Brown
    Consumer Interest Lawyer
    Former Attorney General
    State of West Virginia
    Jeri Smith-Fornara
    Arizona Consumer Council
    Tom Andrews
    Former United States Representative
    State of Maine
    President
    New Economy Communications
    Ira Arlook
    Founder
    Citizen Action



MTC-00033614

From: Don Botkin
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/29/02 12:13am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Don Botkin
108 1/2 East Main St.
Heyworth, IL 61745-0456
January 29, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken

[[Page 30156]]

up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own. Competitors also 
benefit from the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to 
disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an 
operating system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft 
cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
software developers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Don T. Botkin



MTC-00033615

From: Holly Falls
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/29/02 12:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Holly Falls
11301 Riverbank Blvd
Orlando, Fl 32817
January 29, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry. It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it, to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace, rather than the courtroom. And the 
investors who propel our economy can finally breathe a sigh of 
relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not have broken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoft can get back into the business of 
innovating and creating better products for consumers, and not 
wasting valuable resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services to consumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress and tying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats and judges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. With the reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will be encouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Holly & David Falls



MTC-00033616

From: Leo Stevenson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
    Please accept the settlement for Microsoft. Let's move on 
without further litigation. Our national economy needs to move on. 
Accepting the Microsoft settlement will help our national economy 
move forward.



MTC-00033617

From: Wade Mountz
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:38pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Wade Mountz
9 Muirfield Place
Louisville, KY 40222
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Wade Mountz



MTC-00033618

From: JHabicht
To: DOJ
Date: 1/28/02 7:39pm
Subject: anti-trust case
    I would like to voice my opinion on the anti-trust case against 
Microsoft. I feel this case should be resolved immediately. 30 of 
the states were not concerned enough to participate in the lawsuit. 
Eleven of the original 20 states involved were satisfied with the 
settlement. The remaining states led by the viciously revengeful 
attorneys general of Miller and Blumenthal are prolonging this case 
beyond reason. These two individuals have some ax to grind against 
Microsoft and the court and department of justice should put an end 
to this.
    People like the bundling approach because it makes the life of 
working on a computer and the internet easier. Technology moves too 
quickly for any one company to dominate or monopolize.
    I hope this lawsuit can be resolved in the next few months and 
not drag this out any longer.
    John Habicht
    11792 Diamond Dr.
    Shelby Township, MI 48315



MTC-00033619

From: Elmer Elias
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:50pm

[[Page 30157]]

Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Elmer Elias
5401 bus.83
Harlingen, Tx 78552-3639
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Elmer Elias



MTC-00033620

From: Sandra D. Lucas
To: Renata B. Hesse for John Ashcroft
Date: 1/28/02 7:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I would like to make it clear that I, along with millions of 
other sensible people, am in full support of an end to the Microsoft 
antitrust case. I believe you should support the settlement agreed 
upon in this case. The legal system should leave Microsoft alone.
    Microsoft is a very ingenious and successful company. Thousands 
of people depend on Microsoft for their employment. Microsoft also 
exports many products, which is good for our country's economy. 
There is no reason for the governmnet to keep going after Microsoft, 
especially since a settlement exists that could end this case, The 
settlement will give competitors the right to place their software 
on Microsoft's systems. What else could they want? Perhaps the 
competitors want to exploit the legal system to get at Microsoft.
    I believe you are a sensible person with a good instinct for 
justice. That is why I have confidence you will settle this case.
    Thank you for acknowledging my opinion and request.
    Sincerely,
    Sandra D. Lucas



MTC-00033621

From: Don LeBlanc
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:04pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
DONALD LeBLANC
70 COURTSIDE CIRCLE
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, 78216
January 26, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft antitrust dispute. I fully support Microsoft in this 
dispute and believe that the settlement that was reached in November 
is a fair and reasonable means to end this costly litigation. I do 
not believe this lawsuit should have been initiated in the first 
place. I also feel that the charge that Microsoft is a monopoly is 
false and unrealistic.
    This settlement is the best alternative in an imperfect IT 
world. Microsoft came to terms with its more controversial policies 
and rectified them. Now the company will do such things as disclose 
various interfaces of the Windows OS and designing future versions 
of Windows to make it easier to install non-Microsoft software. 
These actions will help its rivals gain a competitive edge that they 
did not have before.
    As a schoolteacher, I have seen firsthand what Microsoft has 
done for the classroom. Please support this settlement and stop 
restricting Microsoft. This company has a lot to contribute to our 
society.
    Thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Donald LeBlanc
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033622

From: Barbara Sanders
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara Sanders
RR 1, Box 50A-1
Terra Alta, WV 26764
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance to consumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.
    It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful spending 
accompanying it,to be over. Consumers will indeed see competition in 
the marketplace,rather than the courtroom. And the investors who 
propel our economy canfinally breathe a sigh of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not havebroken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoftcan get back into the business of innovating 
and creating better productsfor consumers, and not wasting valuable 
resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services toconsumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress andtying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats andjudges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. Withthe reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will beencouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara A. Sanders



MTC-00033623

From: Barbara I. Ball
To: Microsoft Settlement
Date: 1/28/02 8:10pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Barbara I. Ball
104 Goddard Place
La Crosse, WI 54603
January 28, 2002
Microsoft Settlement
U.S. Department of Justice-Antitrust Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Microsoft Settlement:
    The Microsoft trial squandered taxpayers' dollars, was a 
nuisance toconsumers, and a serious deterrent to investors in the 
high-tech industry.It is high time for this trial, and the wasteful 
spending accompanying it,to be over. Consumers will indeed see 
competition in the marketplace,rather than the courtroom.

[[Page 30158]]

And the investors who propel our economy canfinally breathe a sigh 
of relief.
    Upwards of 60% of Americans thought the federal government 
should not havebroken up Microsoft. If the case is finally over, 
companies like Microsoftcan get back into the business of innovating 
and creating better productsfor consumers, and not wasting valuable 
resources on litigation.
    Competition means creating better goods and offering superior 
services toconsumers. With government out of the business of 
stifling progress andtying the hands of corporations, 
consumers--rather than bureaucrats andjudges--will once 
again pick the winners and losers on Wall Street. Withthe reins off 
the high-tech industry, more entrepreneurs will beencouraged to 
create new and competitive products and technologies.
    Our economies downturn started the sametime as the lawsuit 
started. Iremember thinking that with so many people losing their 
entire savingsbecause of the lawsuit that the people most hurt by 
all of this nonsensewas the little guy with the most to lose.
    Yahoo also lost big and the people who invested money was the 
factoryworkers, the sales clerks, etc. The government has to get out 
of ourbusiness and stick to the job the constitution gave them. 
Everything thegovernment touches goes right down the tubes and this 
proves it.
    Thank you for this opportunity to share my views.
    Sincerely,
    Barbara Inez Ball



MTC-00033624

From: Britt Blaser
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
A Subversion of US Power.
    Who will be remembered as the official(s) who handed Microsoft 
the licenseto be the country's sole supplier of reading, writing and 
calculating tools. Microsoft is already a larger economy than most 
nations, and is growingfaster than any. More importantly, it levies 
a tax on every word written andread in our government and our 
military.
    It is bad policy, and probably illegal, for the government to 
depend on asole supplier for any significant resource. Yet the 
government's operationsare dependent on the continuing forbearance 
of Microsoft in allowing thegovernment's computers to function. Not 
only is Microsoft the solecontractor of one of the government's most 
pervasive products,MMICROSOFT IS THE SOLE PURVEYOR OF OUR ABILITY TO 
GOVERN.Absurd? History is littered with the corpses of governments 
that did notrealize the source of their diminution. Just because 
Microsoft is not agovernment, is it to be taken any lighter than so 
many governments wieldinginferior resources? We took Al Queada 
lightly until its real power wasdemonstrated.
    If Microsoft's strength is not checked now, how will it be 
checked when itis stronger? Do we doubt its strength will grow? It 
is tempting (and easier)to dismiss the idea that Microsoft could 
wield its power unethically againstits fellow citizens, but is it 
responsible to ignore the possibility?Is there a guarantee that 
Microsoft's controlling interest cannot fall intothe wrong hands? 
When most PCs are running XP V. 3, what is the remedy whenan 
unforeseen but persistent registration error causes USDOJ computers 
toperform unreliably.
    Of course this is absurd today, but when is it no longer absurd? 
Is any ofus wise enough to say it can never happen? What set of 
unforeseencircumstances would have to occur for this settlement to 
become the mostfoolish lapse of governance in our history?
    Respectfully submitted,
    Lee B. Blaser



MTC-00033625

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 8:16pm
Subject: MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft, Microsoft, in my opinion, has offered a very 
fairsettlement after three years of great time and legal expense for 
both GOV. and MICROSOFT.
    Lets settle this thing and schools will benefit, competitors can 
use prop. windows, customers have choices, and everyone (including 
Massachusetts) can return to being more productive!!
    Cordially,
    Don M. Ward, Sr. , Charlotte, N.C.
    CC:[email protected]@inetgw



MTC-00033626

From: Brent McKay
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Brent McKay
2025 East 30th Street
Scottsbluff, NE 69361
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will 
avoid additional costs and now be able to focus their time and 
resources on matters of far greater national significance: the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will beable to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from the 
provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus,in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, thecountry needs the economic stability this 
settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public interest, 
and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to 
the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Brent McKay



MTC-00033627

From: James Duffy
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Duffy
1147 W 162nd Street
Gardena, Ca 90247-4421
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by

[[Page 30159]]

District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a 
settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the 
country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James Duffy



MTC-00033628

From: Lawrence Greene
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Lawrence Greene
46 Goodnow Road
Princeton , MA 01541
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    The only reason that Sun, Oracle, Apple etc have wanted 
Microsoft broken up is because they beat them in the marketplace. 
Yet the founds of these companies are the ultimate entrepeneurs and 
would be screaming if the Justice Department came after them.
    Furthermore,the consumers have benefited tremendously from 
Microsoft SW. It is low cost, fully integrated, and makes all of us 
more productive. Why do we want to hurt a major exporter to the 
world that helps the US balance of payments. The rest of the World 
laughs at us when we break up our large companies so that can't 
compete against their foreign competitors.
    Again the only beneficiary in this suit are the lawyers. Paying 
lawyers doesn't add any benefit to our economy nor make us more 
productive nation. It is a negative nonvalue added cost.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Lawrence & Marcia Greene



MTC-00033629

From: Jerry Jorgensen
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:59pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Jorgensen
2505 Las Brisas Dr
Virginia Beach, va 23456
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented

[[Page 30160]]

enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry Jorgensen



MTC-00033630

From: Donald Russell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Russell
28 Brandywine Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45246
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald S. Russell



MTC-00033631

From: Donald Russell
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Donald Russell
28 Brandywine Dr.
Cincinnati, OH 45246
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
andconsumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues andsoftware that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We havepaid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Donald S. Russell



MTC-00033632

From: Gary Prae
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 6:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gary Prae
5702 Newberry Point Drive
Flowery Branch, GA 30542
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American 
people, the Department of

[[Page 30161]]

Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid additional costs 
and now be able to focus their time and resources on matters of far 
greater national significance: the war against terrorism, including 
homeland security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-
Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of 
September11, it is vital for the country to move on from this 
lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, 
which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather than 
months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to in novate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at 
the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gary Prae



MTC-00033633

From: Peter McCulloch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 7:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    This organization has done irreparable harm to the computational 
world through its past (and greatly continuing!) predatory policies. 
That such a light settlement has been proposed is a true travesty. 
Mydisgust with Microsoft has led me to the linux community and free 
software movement, the only places where Microsoft has been unable 
to wrap its slithery tentacles. Only a fool would allow them to 
continue the course of their present action, as each day they spread 
themselves in a new direction, looking to extend their monopoly.
    Peter McCulloch
    Center for Experimental Music and Intermedia
    University of North Texas



MTC-00033634

From: Shana Clark
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Shana Clark
8636 Kendall Drive
Plano, tx 75025
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms ofthis Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greaternational 
significance: the war against terrorism, including home land 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will workout of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Shana Taylor Clark



MTC-00033635

From: Martin Ryszka
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 7:06pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Martin Ryszka
7517 Miller Rd.
Dearborn, MI 48126
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgmentin the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation 
has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after 
reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in 
the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department ofJustice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greaternational significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whopushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will beable to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from the 
provision that frees up computer

[[Page 30162]]

manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft application or 
element of an operating system and install other programs. In 
addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer manufactures, 
ISPs, or other softwaredevelopers for using products developed by 
Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, 
a Technical Committee will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for 
the next five years, at the company's expense, and monitor 
Microsoft's behavior and compliance with thesettlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software ontheir computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP,which will have to be modified to comply 
with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Martin S. Ryszka



MTC-00033636

From: Scott Petty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:17pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Scott Petty
712 Hickory Knoll Road
Franklin, NC 28734
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will beable to make Microsoft programs 
compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from the 
provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other 
softwaredevelopers for using products developed by Microsoft 
competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a 
Technical Committee will workout of Microsoft's headquarters for the 
next five years, at the company' sexpense, and monitor Microsoft's 
behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed.Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Scott M. Petty



MTC-00033637

From: Robert Bush
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:32pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Bush
1062 Irene St.
Burleson, TX 76028
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Bush



MTC-00033638

From: Bambi Bush
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bambi Bush
1062 Irene St.
Burleson, TX 76028
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S.

[[Page 30163]]

v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow 
taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bambi Bush



MTC-00033639

From: Charlene Hechler
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Charlene Hechler
26 Pine Arbor Lane #107
Vero Beach, FL 32062
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Charlene Y. Hechler



MTC-00033640

From: SAMUEL YOUNGMAN
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:56pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
SAMUEL YOUNGMAN
503 EXETER LANE
CAMBRIA, CA 93428
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to

[[Page 30164]]

select a variety of pre-installed software on their computers. It 
will also be easier to substitute competitors' products after 
purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and software that 
were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which 
will have to be modified to comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    SAMUEL YOUNGMAN



MTC-00033641

From: Ronald Couey
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ronald Couey
1427 Summit Run Circle
West Palm Beach, Fl 33415-4748
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ronald Couey



MTC-00033642

From: Jeffrey Marty
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:15pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jeffrey Marty
2034 Londonderry Dr #304
Madison, WI 53704-4114
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance--the war 
against terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District 
Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement 
after the attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to 
move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to 
reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case--the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jeffrey C. Marty



MTC-00033643

From: Edward Briggs
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:24pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Briggs
6735 Lakefront Drive
Magalia, CA 95954
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the

[[Page 30165]]

country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely 
hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect 
immediately rather than months or years from now when all appeals 
from continuing the litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edward W. Briggs



MTC-00033644

From: Edward Evanko
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Edward Evanko
1885 Military Ave
Seaside, CA 93955
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Edward Evanko



MTC-00033645

From: Dorothy Pittsley
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 5:33pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dorothy Pittsley
11406 E 4th Ave.
Spokane, WA 99206
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever,

[[Page 30166]]

the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dorothy N. Pittsley



MTC-00033646

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: [email protected]@inetgw
Date: 1/28/02 2:56pm
Subject: microsoft settlement
    Cannot believe what the justice dept. is trying to do to a[[ 
large exporting business]] this country needs more exports Microsoft 
brings billions to this country Also I would start a new business if 
I could have Orin Hatch, Novell, Sun micro Systems, Time Warner AOL, 
many other competitors & the justice dept. To stifle my 
competition I couldn't help but make money
    This is real injustice done by GREEDY FAME SEEKING ATTORNEYS 
& JANET RENO TRYING TO FURTHER THEIR POLITICAL GOALS What 
Microsoft & BILL & MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION HAVE DONE FOR 
SCHOOLS ABUSED WOMEN & THOUSANDS OF OTHER GOOD CAUSES, PLAY 
GROUND EQUIPMENT FOR SCHOOLS THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OF STATES THAT 
WONT SETTLE ARE HURTING SCHOOLS IN THEIR STATES BY NOT ACCEPTING 
SOFTWARE, COMPUTERS & ECT. FOR THEIR SCHOOLS THEY WANT CASH TO 
USE ON THEIR PET PROJECTS [JUST LIKE TOBACCO MONEY] WHICH WAS FOR 
HEALTH CARE BUT USED FOR OTHER PET PROJECTS
    Al Jangard oly wa
    CC:Microsoft ATR



MTC-00033647

From: John Dunshee
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:00pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
John Dunshee
32015 Griffith Dr
Tangent, OR 97389
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case--the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, 
competitors, consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken 
up and will be able to continue to innovate and provide new software 
and products. Software developers and Internet service providers 
(ISPs), including competitors, will have unprecedented access to 
Microsoft's programming language and thus will be able to make 
Microsoft programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    John Dunshee



MTC-00033648

From: David Thrasher
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:02pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
David Thrasher
300 Hickory Street SE
Hartselle, AL 35640-2552
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely, David L. Thrasher



MTC-00033649

From: Gerald Hillman
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:09pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Gerald Hillman
4218 Village East Circle
San Angelo, TX 77904-6662
January 28, 2002

[[Page 30167]]

Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsofts 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsofts headquarters for the next five years, at 
the companys expense, and monitor Microsofts behavior and compliance 
with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Gerald W Hillman



MTC-00033650

From: Jonathan H. Bari
To: Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:23pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata,
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, attached please find our comments on 
the Revised Proposed Final Judgement.
    Thank you.
    Jon
(NOTE NEW OFFICE ADDRESS AS OF 11/21/01)
Jonathan H. Bari
Chairman and CEO
CATAVAULT
100 West Elm Street, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
610.941.3388
610.828.9966 (fx)
[email protected]
http://www.catavault.com/company
CNN Headline News call CATAVAULT--``one site that can get 
you in everywhere...''
Business Week calls CATAVAULT, ``An Open Sesame for the Whole 
Web.''
    This message may contain privileged and confidential 
information. In the event that this message has reached you in 
error, you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance 
on it, and we would ask you to notify us immediately by return e-
mail.
    CC: Microsoft ATR, 
[email protected]@inetgw,dan@cata...

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff v MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 
Defendant
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia
STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, et al., 
Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
Defendant
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
United States District Court for the
District of Columbia

COMMENTS OF CATAVAULT ON THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

INTEREST OF THE COMMENTER

    Given that Microsoft's Net Passport is the heart of Windows XP, 
Microsofts new Operating System that was officially launched on 
October 25, 2001, Catavault, a software company addressing online 
identification and authentication, unfortunately finds itself in the 
cross-hairs of the most powerful software company in the world, 
since Microsoft has tied its .Net Passport to Windows XP. Pursuant 
to the Tunney Act, this document sets forth Catavault's comments on 
the Revised Proposed Final Judgment because we feel that competing 
products such as Catavault will still unfortunately be set at a 
disadvantage which is not related to price or quality. If the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgement is accepted as is, the result will 
be a weakening of effective competition in the market, a reduction 
in consumer choice and less technological innovation, generally 
speaking and specifically to online identification and 
authentication.
    Catavault has developed, commerically licensed and deployed 
patent pending software that is both complementary and competitive 
with Microsoft .Net Passport in online identity and authentication 
services. Although Microsoft's September 20, 2001 announcement that 
a future version of .Net Passport will be federated, \1\ and 
thus may be interoperable with rivals' services, we believe 
this in no way alters the extremely serious concerns articulated 
herein. Moreover, in spite of the Revised Proposed Final Judgement 
announced between the United States Department of Justice, nine 
states Attorneys General and Microsoft Corporation, Catavault 
believes this in no way alters the exremely serious concerns 
articulated herein.
    As such, Catavault has been encouraged that various states 
Attorneys General still have the resolve and resources necessary to 
continue the fight in ensuring conduct remedies that are timely, 
effective, certain and practical when it comes to curbing 
Microsoft's recidivistic behavior.
    While these Tunney Act comments were prepared from the heart so 
to speak of the entreprenours managing Catavault, Catavault has been 
working to promote vigorous competition in computer industry 
platforms and gateways with our antitrust counselors from Morgan, 
Lewis and Bockius including Mr. Willard K. Tom based in Washington, 
DC and Mr. Julian M. Joshua based in Brussels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 1 See
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CATAVAULT OVERVIEW

    Catavault is a pioneer in the online user identification and 
authentication space. Catavault's technology powers the ``All 
Access Pass to the Internet,'' and it allows users to access 
more than 3,500 sites ranging from Amazon.com to ZDNet, a couple of 
orders of magnitude more than Microsofts .Net Passport currently 
enables access to, without the need to remember all of their 
authentication credentials for those sites. Unlike .Net Passport 
which is only accessible from a PC, Catavault is accessible from a 
PC, PDA, Mobile Phone and Set-top Box, so users can access their 
information from any device, at any time and from anywhere. CNN 
Headline News has called Catavault--``one site that can 
get you in everywhere...''
    BusinessWeek has called Catavault, ``An Open Sesame for the 
Whole Web.'' Despite these arguably superior features of its 
services, Catavault is severely endangered by the steps Microsoft is 
taking to ensure that .Net Passport becomes the dominant occupant of 
the online identity and authentication space. Accordingly, Catavault 
is endangered by the Revised Proposed Final Judgement. The remedial 
principle is straightforward enough: the remedy should unfettter a 
market from anticompetitive conduct, . . . terminate the illegal 
monopoly, deny to the defendant the fruits of its statutory 
violation and ensure that there

[[Page 30168]]

remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future.\2\ However, in spite of the overwhelming en banc victory on 
liability, the Revised Proposed Final Judgement does little to 
ensure that conduct remedies are timely, effective, certain and 
practical in curbing Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior.

NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS & MICROSOFT S HAILSTORM STRATEGY

    Microsoft fully recognizes that, because of the network 
characteristics of the industry, only subtle uses of its monopoly 
position are necessary in order to gain an unwarranted, but 
insuperable dominance in this field. Indeed, its choice of 
``HailStorm'' as a metaphor speaks volumes. As you may 
know, with each updraft in the natural weather-related occurrence of 
a hail storn, hail stones get larger as more water molecules attach 
to the crystalline structures of the hail stones. Similarly, 
Microsoft makes its monopoly position more impregnable with every 
adjacent space it dominates. Each layer creates another multiple-
level entry problem for potential competitors, as described in the 
United States Department of Justice's 1984 Merger Guidelines to 
which the United States Federal agencies still refer in non-
horizontal matters. Figure 1 is a visual representation of the 
troubling processes that Catavault see at work with respect to a 
monopolist bundling its own applications to its dominant Operating 
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ United States v. Microsoft Corp., slip op. at 
99-100, No. 00-5212 (DC Cir. June 28,2001), quoting Ford 
Motor Corp v. United States, 405 U.S. 562,577 (1972); United States 
v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244,250 (1068).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As reported in The Wall Street Journal on September 20,2001, 
Microsoft changed the name of its HailStorm initiative to 
``.Net My Services''--possibly because they realized 
that its very name, HailStorm, has strong whiffs of antitrust 
violations.
    One can argue that network effects require a lock-in mechanism. 
However, teh traditional lock-in mechanism is access to complements. 
Some of the services offered by Catavault and .Net Passport require 
cooperation from third party Internet site(s). If .Net Passport has 
a much larger number of users, gained through the use of its 
operating system monopoly, then why would the sites would want to 
work with Catavault? If the sites cease to work with Catavault, then 
why would users find Catavault attractive? These questions and their 
answers are paramount to understanding how market signaling and 
network effects work towards teh monopolists advantages when it ties 
its own applications to its dominant Operating System.

NETSCAPE--FRUITS OF MICROSOFT S STATUTORY VIOLATIONS

    Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft s actions have 
conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the 
computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, 
Intel and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its 
prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that 
insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition 
against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft s past success 
in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment 
in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to 
threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations 
that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason 
that they do no coincide with Microsoft s self-interest.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's Finding of Fact, 412th 
and final paragraph, November 5, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, When Microsoft destroyed Netscape as a potential 
rival platform, it did more than achieve dominance in browsers. It 
also prevented rival applications developers from playing Microsoft 
off against Netscape in the battle to ensure the survival of their 
applications programs and services. If Netscape and/or other 
browser/middleware platform software had as a serious competitor to 
Microsoft, competitive pressures would have forced one or more 
platforms to carry Catavault, because doing so would have provided a 
competitive advantage. The platform itself would have become more 
attractive if, through accessing Catavault, users were freed from 
cumbersome authentication procedures on a much larger number of 
sites. That competitive pressure is now gone. Thus, Catavault's 
current predicament flows directly from Microsoft's earlier unlawful 
acts against Netscape.

MARKET EXPECTATIONS STIFLE INNOVATION AND COMPETITION

    Moreover, the very public humbling of an 85 percent market share 
player like Netscape in inself creates market expectations that 
where Microsoft announces an intention to dominate a strategic 
space, it will succeed in doing so. .Net Passport occupies a 
strategic space as the on-ramp to the Internet as illustrated in 
Figure 2, and Microsoft has been quite public about that fact as has 
been reported in articles in The Industry Standard.\4\ Consequently, 
merchants, investors and other marketplace participants become 
highly resistant to dealing with Microsoft's competitors in such 
spaces. For example, Benjamin D. Black, a principal of the Rosewood 
Venture Group, a U.S. venture capital firm in San Francisco, 
California has stated, ``I still won't invest in companies that 
are directly in front of Microsoft's development path.''\5\ And 
Stewart Alsop, a general partnet of New Enterprise Associates, a 
Silicon Valley venture capital firm in the U.S., has been quoted as 
saying, ``The most common question for potential investors is: 
``What about Windows XP?'' You can still compete but if 
Microsoft bundles it in Windows it makes it much more difficult for 
any kind of innovation that is in Microsoft's path.\6\ Thus, in this 
sense, too, Microsoft's earlier unlawful acts against Netscape 
directly cuts Catavault off from access to important complements.
    To that end, one could argure that the competition is ultimately 
not for the end-user, but for the online service providers who 
actually pay for online identity and authentication services. 
Signing up 200 million Hotmail accounts gives Microsoft a huge 
critical mass of users, but what does it do to get third party sites 
to work with .Net Passport? To answer this effectively, one must 
understand that having so many users signals to the marketplace that 
Microsoft will dominate online identity and authentication services. 
Moreover, these third party businesses are motivated to work with 
Microsoft based on the marketing support that Microsoft can provide 
them--thus creating value propositions from Microsoft s 
monopoly position. If third party businesses believe that Microsoft 
will also succeed in using its Operating System monopoly to push 
Catavault and/or others aside in terms of subscribers or utlities, 
then third party firms will not have an incentive to work with 
Catavault. As former United States Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
Carl Shapiro has described in his writings, expectations play a very 
large role in network markets.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.thestandard.com/article/
0,1902,27686,00.html.
    \5\ The New York Times, September 7, 2001, Competitors See 
a Giant That is Now Largely Unfettered, by Michael Brick.
    \6\ The New York Times, September 7, 2001, Pendulum Swings 
to Microsoft, But the Degree Remains Unclear, by Steve Lohr.
    \7\ Speech by Carl Shapiro, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General, Antitrust Division, United States Department of Justice. 
American Law Institute and American Bar Association, 
``Antitrust/Intellectual Property Claims in High Technology 
Markets,'' San Francisco, California, January 25, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MAKING .NET PASSPORT THE DE FACTO IDENTITY SERVICE IN WINDOWS XP

    Microsoft has taken a number of steps to ensure, and to make 
consumers believe, that having a .Net Passport account is necessary 
in order to access features of Windows XP and/or other Microsoft 
goods and services. Indeed, the press, encouraged by Microsoft, has 
come to the conclusion that Microsoft .Net Passport ``will be 
the exclusive identity service on teh enw Windows XP operating 
system. Any XP user who wishes to access key services such as 
Windows Messenger (for Instant Messaging) will have to register for 
a Passport.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Source: http://www.thestandard.com/article/
0,1902,27685,00.html, attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft has not achieved its claimed 2000 million .Net 
Passport subscribers by offering a superior service. (Competitive 
market research indicates that .Net Passport is currently accepted 
by only about 35-70 sites, most of which are owned by 
Microsoft, have received substantial Microsoft investment or 
partnered with Microsoft in some sort of business arrangement.) 
Instead, it has done so by these kinds of suggestions of 
inevitability and by automatically opening .Net Passport accounts 
for all Hotmail and MSN users, and even hinting at future 
integration and potential incompatibilities. Thus, in published 
reports regarding .Net Passport 2.0, it is stated, ``...with 
this release, Hotmail will move to the Passport code base for easier 
integration.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Source: http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/
Index.cfm?ArticleID=22174, attached.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catavault experienced this directly in early September 2001 when 
a Catavault employee tried to access the latest release candidate of 
XP. First, he learned that one could not get the latest preview of 
XP online without a .Net

[[Page 30169]]

Passport account.\10\ Then, after downloading that version of XP and 
rebooting, he got a blank desktop, but in the system tray in the 
bottom right, a message popped up that said: ``Add your .NET 
Passport to Windows XP! You've just connected to the Internet. You 
need a Passport to use Windows XP Internet communications features 
(such as instant messaging, voice chat, and video), and to access 
.NET-enabled services on the Internet. Click here to set up your 
Passport now.''
    When he clicked, it went to the .NET Passport Wizard to let him 
sign up for Passport. Thus, whether or not there are actual 
incompatibilities, Microsoft has been representing to users that 
they must sign up for .Net Passport in order to access key XP 
features or other Microsoft services. In a network business, that 
may be all Microsoft needs to maintain and extend its dominance to 
this space as well. These network characteristics undoubtedly 
underlie some of the ``vaporware'' aspects of Microsoft's 
dramatic announcements but slow rollout. We have already mentioned 
how small the number of third party sites accepting .Net Passport 
is. In the same vein, ZDNet has reported that American Express has 
yet to sign a contract with Microsoft for HailStorm services. This 
despite the fact that Microsoft touted American Express as a partner 
at the very announcement of the HailStorm initiative, by featuring 
American Express Chief Information Officer in that announcement.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Source: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/preview/
systemreq.asp.
    \11\ http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/
0,4586,5096385,00.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROPOSED CONDUCT REMEDIES TO CURB ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES

    If there is no efficiency justification for Microsoft's tactics 
such as bundling and/or market signaling, they may be acts of 
monopolization in themselves. But regardless of whether they are or 
not, the current situation flows directly from Microsoft's earlier 
unlawful acts against Netscape. While one can never know with 
certainty exactly what that but-for world would have been had 
Netscape survived, it was reasonably certain that, for some 
significant period of time, there would have been a competitive 
struggle between Microsoft and Netscape as alternative nuclei around 
which other providers of applications and services would coalesce. 
Both would seek to commoditize the other's space. If Netscape gained 
the upper hand, multiple operating systems would become available to 
computer users. If Microsoft gained the upper hand, multiple 
browsers would become available. Consequently, any remedy for those 
earlier acts needs to include some kind of mandated intra-system 
competition to take the place of the competition that would have 
existed between the two systems to add attractive applications 
through a Ballot Screen with choices for online identity and 
authentication services such as Catavault.
    We have given a great deal of thought to what order language 
would be needed to implement the concept of a Ballot Screen. 
Following is the rationale and the result can be found in Figure 3 
with the language marked as to revisions. It uses Microsoft's 
inclusion of middleware products in its operating system software as 
the benchmark for what types of products should be included, with 
the slight modification that it remedies the continuing effects of 
past inclusions as well as remedying the effects of future 
inclusions. As you will see, there is a provision for approval by 
some entity, corresponding to Commission approval in the AOL Time 
Warner order, in order to ensure that the competing products are 
serious competitors to Microsoft. In the case of online identity and 
authentication, the seriousness of the competition can be measured 
by the number of sites, users, and devices accessed by the 
competitor. These metrics could be written into the order if 
desired, but in any event the existence of available metrics would 
ensure that the entity charged with approval would have an objective 
way of exercising that discretion. As you will also see, when we 
reviewed Judge Jackson's order, we concluded that online identity 
and authentication service software would fit comfortably into the 
definition of ``middleware,'' but for the avoidance of 
doubt, we included it specifically in the list of examples. In 
addition to offering services via communications interfaces as now 
occurs, it is entirely possible that in the future, programmers of 
sites or of programs used to build sites will write software built 
upon a Catavault platform. We have also given further thought to the 
Department of Justice's observation that a possible standard for 
relief is that it should be aimed at opening the operating system 
market to competition. After reflection, we believe that our 
proposed Ballot Screen relief does in fact further that goal, but 
that such a standard is nonetheless wrong, in spite of that standard 
appearing in the Department of Justice's September 6, 2001 press 
release.
    The relief we propose does further the goal of operating system 
competition, because allowing Microsoft to use its operating system 
monopoly to obtain a dominant position in the authentication gateway 
to the Internet will mean the creation of yet another applications 
barrier to entry, because it will be extremely difficult to police 
the ways in which Passport could be used to favor Windows if a 
credible threat to Windows arose.
    There is, however, a more fundamental issue: the proper standard 
must be to restore the competitive conditions that would have 
existed but for the illegal conduct. It is, of course, too late to 
revive Netscape as a credible threat to Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly. One approach might be, as the Department of Justice once 
proposed, to find in Microsoft's applications 
software--particularly its dominant Office suite--a 
sufficiently dangerous competitive threat to the operating system 
monopoly. As in the competition between Microsoft and Netscape in 
the but-for world, the point of that remedy was not to assure 
ultimate, long-term competition in operating systems. The operating 
system company might win the competitive struggle, and ultimately 
maintain its monopoly position through lawful means. The point of 
the remedy was the competitive struggle itself. That remedy was 
imperfect, as are all the alternatives. But for better or worse, it 
is now off the table.
    Whatever replaces it, the goal should not be to assure ultimate, 
long-term competition in operating systems. The but-for world did 
not do so. Microsoft might well have won the competitive struggle, 
and maintained its monopoly. The point of the Netscape threat to the 
operating system monopoly was that Microsoft had to compete with 
better products and prices, and in the meantime the rest of the 
computer industry would be vigorously competitive and innovative, 
and might nurture the next threat to the surviving monopolist. It is 
the strangling of that dynamic from which the market must be 
unfettered, and it is Microsoft's freedom from that dynamic that 
constitutes the ``fruits of its statutory violation.'' At 
this point in the evolution of the computer industry, after 
Microsoft's misconduct, it might well be a hopeless task to restore 
competition in operating systems.
    It is not too late, however, to restore the competitive dynamic 
that ensured that, while Microsoft battles its chief rivals in the 
most strategic battleground at any given time, innovators in the 
next strategic space could play one against the other in order to 
survive. At the moment, the inter-system competition that Netscape 
represented is gone, and the Department of Justice is no longer 
seeking to have competition from Microsoft Office take its place. 
Thus, the temporary stopgap by which the next strategic space can 
develop must be intra-system competition, or ``must-
carry.'' That will revive some of the competitive dynamic that 
Microsoft has cut off, and allow competition to flourish 
in--and on the other side of--those gateways. Ergo, just 
as Microsoft agreed to change its digital imaging features to give 
users easier access to digital imaging software from a number of 
providers such as Kodak, not just those affiliated with Microsoft, 
so there needs to be a requirement that Microsoft incorporate 
Catavault (and other online identity and authentication services 
that may arise) into XP as a complementary and competitive service. 
Thus, doing some kind of a ``Ballot Screen'' for consumers 
to select which online identity and authentication service they 
would like may be as close as one can get to the competitive 
landscape that would have existed but for Microsoft's already 
adjudicated unlawful conduct.
    In addition, of course, one would need to prohibit Microsoft 
from introducing incompatibilities, to forbid Microsoft from making 
use of .Net Passport as a prerequisite to use other Microsoft goods 
and services, and so forth. Otherwise, the need to sign up with .Net 
Passport to get the XP preview is likely to continue to be the 
typical pattern for accessing anything that Microsoft can control or 
influence.

MICROSOFT's FEDERATED ANNOUNCEMENT & INTERNET TRUST NETWORK -ITS 
EFFECTS AND RELATION TO FEAR, UNCERTAINTY & DOUBT

    A ``Ballot Screen'' remedy would be far superior to 
waiting to see how Microsoft's latest federated announcement plays 
out. As the Department of Justice well knows, a ``fear, 
uncertainty and doubt'' strategy relies

[[Page 30170]]

heavily on the passage of time and the uncertainty of the future. 
(This is undoubtedly why Microsoft has been making every effort to 
delay judicial and legislative proceedings in the United States.) As 
of January 28, 2002, Catavault has neither been invited to any 
Microsoft developers conference yet, nor has it learned of any 
developers conference yet, albeit Catavault has informed Microsoft 
about its potential willingness to participate in the conference. 
Additionally, XP has already been launched with an aggressive 
marketing campaign and with .Net Passport as the exclusive online 
identity and authentication service. .Net Passport will have a huge 
user base that will undoubtedly get larger between now and the time 
that any Microsoft federation conference or any competitive and/or 
complementary solution such as the Liberty Alliance initiated by Sun 
Microsystems produces any tangible results in the marketplace. The 
agenda of the federated conference and other like it such as the 
Liberty Alliance may be to develop standards for implementation of 
online user identification and authentication services, and in the 
case of Microsoft's Internet Trust Network, built upon a technology 
platform of Microsoft's choosing, regardless of consumer 
preferences. Following that developers conference, there may be a 
long period of back-and-forth over technical standards. Next may 
come a period in which Microsoft sows uncertainty about the extent 
to which other services are fully interoperable, perhaps because of 
peculiarities in Microsoft's implementation of the common standard. 
During all that time, .Net Passport will become more and more 
entrenched, regardless of consumers preferences as to the features 
and scope of competing online user identification and authentication 
services. Industry pundits used to subscribe to the notion that 
first mover advantage was the most important mission of many new 
technology ventures. However, based on present market conditions, we 
argue that it has nothing to do with first mover advantage anymore; 
rather it has everything to do with the concept of last man 
standing. Accordingly with over US $36 billion in cash reserves on 
hand, Microsoft is well positioned to be the last man standing in 
many industries including online identity and authentication.

PROBLEMS WITH THE REVISED PROPOSED FINAL JUDGEMENT

    While there are many troubling issues with the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement, two of the more salient problems for the online 
identity and authentication sector involve the following terms and 
provisions:
    ï¿½ OEMs--The fact is that Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) are a sub-optimal source to serve as an 
adequate check and balance on Microsoft's anti-competitive actions. 
For example, the provisions that allow OEMs to have greater freedom 
to select which software to use and not to use do absolutely nothing 
to protect consumer choice and technological innovation.
    Thus, providing the OEMs greater freedom as a conduct remedy 
against Microsoft is meaningless today given consolidation in the PC 
industry, slumping PC sales, depressed PC margins, and the fact that 
the OEMs do not want to bite the hand that feeds 
them--Microsoft.
    Moreover, the OEMs know very well that small companies such as 
Catavault cannot afford to compete against Microsoft, both in terms 
of operations and marketing. Case in point, Windows XP launched on 
time because Microsoft lobbied that XP would help revive slumping PC 
sales, and Microsoft is spending approximately US $250 million just 
on marketing for XP. As such, OEMs do not necessarily want to bet on 
smaller players which find themselves in the cross-hairs of 
Microsoft--thus consumer choice and technological innovation 
are still harmed.
    AUTHENTICATION LOOPHOLE--The following provision from the 
proposed settlement seems to be the veritable loophole large enough 
to drive a truck through, particularly affecting Catavault and other 
online identity and authentication services.
    J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:
    1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third 
parties: (a) portions of APIs or Documentation or portions or layers 
of Communications Protocols the disclosure of which would compromise 
the security of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital 
rights management, encryption or authentication systems, including 
without limitation, keys, authorization tokens or enforcement 
criteria; or (b) any API, interface or other information related to 
any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do so by a 
governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.
    \12\  Identification and authentication is singled out for 
a loophole to free Microsofts. Net Passport from scrutiny and permit 
Microsoft to bind a universal identification and authentication 
service utility to its monopoly operating system without scrutiny 
under the Revised Proposed Final Judgement. By permitting Microsoft 
to withhold key parts of encryption, digital rights management, 
authentication, and other security protocols, the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement effectively clears the way for the desktop 
monopolist to the Web-services monopolist in a distributed computing 
environment. The Revised Proposed Final Judgement could hardly try 
to place a clearer stamp of approval on an expansion of the scope of 
an illegally maintained monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9462.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CONCLUSION
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgement agreed to by the United 
States Department of Justice, the Attorneys General of nine states 
and Microsoft Corporation does not attain its goals of curbing 
Microsoft s recidivistic behavior in maintaining and extending its 
operating system monopoly into Web-services such as online 
identification and authentication, which Microsoft has bet will be 
the next gateway to the Internet. Specifically, the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgement does not provide adequate incentives across 
constituent bodies and penalties for Microsoft to ensure that the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgement goals are attained. Moreover, the 
lenient conduct remedies imposed on Microsoft are essentially a slap 
on the wrist for its illegal conduct and anti-competitive practices. 
Unfortunately, technological innovation and consumer choice will 
continue to be harmed, and this will be exacerbated in challenging 
economic conditions if the Revised Proposed Final Judgement is 
accepted as is. As such, the Revised Proposed Final Judgement needs 
to be revised significantly if it is to have any real impact in the 
marketplace in curbing Microsoft s recidivistic behavior. 
Specifically, as it pertains to the heart of Windows XP and 
Microsoft s goal of dominating online identification and 
authentication with .Net Passport, we believe quite passionately 
that implementing a Ballot Screen for users to choose which 
identification and authentication service that they would like would 
go a long way to providing a conduct remedy that was more timely, 
effective and certain.
    Figure 1
    The world of operating systems becomes more homogenous over 
time. Today something like 85 percent of the computers on the planet 
run the same operating system [Microsoft's]. There is sort of a 
positive feedback cycle here. If you get more applications, it gets 
more popular, if it gets more popular, it gets more applications.

--Bill Gates keynote address, Conference on Internet and Society 
at Harvard in May 1996; World War 3.0 by Ken Auletta.

    On June 28, 2001, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals 
unanimously held that Microsoft engaged in unlawful monopolization. 
Notwithstanding Judge Jackson s ruling and the appellate ruling, 
Microsoft prominently announced its major corporate initiative 
called HailStorm in March 2001; the very choice of HailStorm as a 
name serves as a metaphor for a positive feedback cycle in Bill 
Gates opinion or network effects and increasing returns in an 
antitrust perspective.
    The heart of HailStorm is based on .Net Passport, Microsoft s 
proprietary online identification and authentication service. This 
market signaling transcends into Microsoft's strategy and tactics to 
gain market advantage in new sectors using .Net Passport. .Net 
Passport is the exclusive online identification and authentication 
service on Windows XP. Accordingly, .Net Passport will be the de 
facto online identification and authentication service which will 
limit consumer choice and undermine innovation. As reported in The 
Wall Street Journal on September 20, 2001, Microsoft changed the 
name of HailStorm to ``.Net My Services''--possibly 
because they realize that its very name--HailStorm--has 
strong whiffs of antitrust violations.
    Note: In its natural weather-related occurrence, hail stones are 
large frozen raindrops produced by intense thunderstorms. As the 
frozen drops fall, liquid water freezes onto them forming ice 
pellets that continue to grow as more and more droplets accumulate. 
Upon reaching the bottom of the cloud [symbolic for the Internet], 
some of the ice pellets are carried by the updraft back up to the 
top of the cloud. As the ice pellets once again fall through the 
cloud, another layer of ice is

[[Page 30171]]

added and the hail stones grow even larger. Typically the stronger 
the updraft, the more times hail stones repeat this cycle and 
consequently, the larger the hail stones grow. Once the hail stones 
become too heavy to be supported by the updraft, they fall out of 
the cloud toward the surface. The hail stones reach the ground as 
ice since they are not in the warm air below the thunderstorm long 
enough to melt before reaching the ground.
    And as one knows, you should take cover from a hail storm...
    Figure 2
    Microsoft's .Net Passport online identification & 
authentication technology controls the gateway to all applications 
in Windows XP Windows XP
    It's our goal to have virtually everybody who uses the Internet 
to have one of these Passport connections--Bill Gates Source: 
The Industry Standard--July 3, 2001 http://www.thestandard.com/
article/0,1902,27685,00.html
    While digital photography, instant messaging and streaming media 
all are very important issues to constituents such as Kodak, AOL 
Time Warner and Real Networks respectively, the backbone to 
Microsoft s HailStorm (renamed .Net My Services) initiative and full 
utilization of Windows XP is the Microsoft .Net Passport 
identification and authentication service. Microsoft has stated that 
.Net Passport will be the exclusive Internet identity service on 
Windows XP, and Passport will be required to utilize some or all of 
the features noted above.
    Thus, even if competition in those areas is assured, Microsoft 
will still hold the real keys to access and conceivably will be able 
to use its .Net Passport monopoly to direct traffic away from 
competing digital photography, instant messaging and streaming media 
applications.
    Instant Messaging
    Digital Imaging Streaming Media
    Microsoft s .Net Passport
    Identification & Authentication
    Technology
    Microsoft Office XP
    Internet Explorer
    Figure 3 Proposed Order (Marked with changes) 3g. Restriction on 
BindingIncluding Middleware Products toin Operating System Products. 
Microsoft shall not, in any Operating System Product distributed six 
or more months after the effective date of this Final Judgment, Bind 
include any Middleware Product toin a Windows Operating System 
unless:
    i. that Operating System also includes at least two (2) 
comparable Middleware Products offered by non-affiliated firms 
approved by the [Antitrust Division] [Department of Justice] [Court] 
[Trustee] or Microsoft demonstrates to the satisfaction of 
[----------] that fewer than two such 
products exist, in which case Microsoft shall include all that 
exist. The option of using such non-affiliated products shall be 
displayed to the user on terms no less favorable than those accorded 
to the Microsoft products.
    ii. Microsoft also offers an otherwise identical version of that 
Operating System Product in which all means of End-User Access to 
thatthose Middleware Products can readily be removed (a) by OEMs as 
part of standard OEM pre-installation kits and (b) by end users 
using add-remove utilities readily accessible in the initial boot 
process and from the Windows desktop.; and
    iii. when an OEM removes End-User Access to a Microsoft 
Middleware Product from any Personal Computer on which Windows is 
preinstalled, the royalty paid by that OEM for that copy of Windows 
is reduced in an amount not less than the product of the otherwise 
applicable royalty and the ratio of the number of amount in bytes of 
binary code of (a) the Middleware Product as distributed separately 
from a Windows Operating System Product to (b) the applicable 
version of Windows.
    3g. Middleware Products Included in Previously Distributed 
Operating System Products. If Microsoft has, in any Operating System 
Product distributed less than six months after the effective date of 
this Final Judgment, included any Middleware Product in a Windows 
Operating System, it shall within six months after the effective 
date of this Final Judgment:
    i. release a version of its most recent Operating System that 
includes at least two (2) comparable Middleware Products offered by 
non-affiliated firms approved by the [Antitrust Division] 
[Department of Justice] [Court] [Trustee], unless Microsoft 
demonstrates to the satisfaction of 
[----------] that fewer than two such 
products exist, in which case Microsoft shall include all that 
exist. The option of using such non-affiliated products shall be 
displayed to the user on terms no less favorable than those accorded 
to the Microsoft products.
    ii. offer an otherwise identical version of that Operating 
System Product in which all means of End-User Access to those 
Middleware Products can readily be removed (a) by OEMs as part of 
standard OEM preinstallation kits and (b) by end users using add-
remove utilities readily accessible in the initial boot process and 
from the Windows desktop.
    7q. Middleware means software that operates, directly or through 
other software, between an Operating System and another type of 
software (such as an application, a server Operating System, or a 
database management system, including such Operating Systems and 
database management systems on an Internet site) by offering 
services via APIs or Communications Interfaces to such other 
software, and could, if ported to or interoperable with multiple 
Operating Systems, enable software products written for that 
Middleware to be run on multiple Operating System Products. Examples 
of Middleware within the meaning of this Final Judgment include 
Internet browsers, online identity and authentication service 
software, e-mail client software, multimedia viewing software, 
Office, and the Java Virtual Machine. Examples of software that are 
not Middleware within the meaning of this Final Judgment are disk 
compression and memory management.
    r. Middleware Product means
    i. Internet browsers, e-mail client software, multimedia viewing 
software, instant messaging software, online identity and 
authentication service software, and voice recognition software, or
    ii. software distributed by Microsoft that ï¿½
    (1) is, or has in the applicable preceding year been, 
distributed separately from an Operating System Product in the 
retail channel or through Internet access providers, Internet 
content providers, ISVs or OEMs, and (2) provides functionality 
similar to that provided by Middleware offered by a competitor to 
Microsoft.



MTC-00033651

From: Thomas Tully
Date: 1/28/02 3:43pm
Subject: Microsoft Case
file:///Lff7371 Remedy/Paralegals/TULLY.HTM
January 28, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    To Whom It May Concern:
    I hope that you will reconsider the decision to settle the 
United States Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit against 
Microsoft Corporation. American consumers may have been overcharged 
$20 billion by the Microsoft monopoly. Your agreement with Bill 
Gates' company does nothing to rectify past sins by this company or 
protect against future gauging.
    As you know, at least ten consumer groups disagree with your 
agreement to settle. Microsoft has little incentive to change any of 
its practices. Their concessions of handing over some operating 
systems code and offering manufacturers some sovereignty over Media 
Player amounts to little more than a light slap on the wrists for a 
multi-billion dollar company.
    I am proud that my state's Attorney General, Tom Miller, 
rejected this Microsoft agreement. I believe that Mr. Miller and the 
other eight state attorneys general see the many loopholes and 
problems with enforcement that does little to affect change in the 
computer software industry. Splitting Microsoft into two or three 
companies may not be the proper response, but neither is this. Your 
decision to prematurely end litigation against Microsoft is a 
mistake. The agreement offers no real incentive to stop 
monopolistic, anti-trust efforts. It won't help much smaller 
companies compete and it doesn't serve the American consumer. Please 
continue to go after Microsoft. It is a duty of the Justice 
Department to protect the average citizen from companies that have 
grown too large and too powerful by questionable business practices.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas P. Tully
    318 51st Street
    Des Moines, Iowa 50312
    CC: Iowa Attorney General
    Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. Click 
Here



MTC-00033652

From: Bob Grasmick

[[Page 30172]]

To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:52pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Bob Grasmick
3239 Monte Vista
Torrington, Wy 82240
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors/ products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Bob Grasmick



MTC-00033653

From: Leo Caissie
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 3:54pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Leo Caissie
524 Main Street
Hudson, MA 01749-2909
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Leo A.Caissie



MTC-00033654

From: ROBERT PIOLI
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:07pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
ROBERT PIOLI
102 LYNN AVE
MARIETTA, OH 45750
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs.

[[Page 30173]]

In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    ROBERT L. PIOLI



MTC-00033655

From: wendell starr
To: Renata B. Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 4:11pm
Subject: Microsoft settlement
To: Renatta B. Hesse Antitrust Division
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Washington, DC
    Dear Sir,
    The antitrust case against Microsoft was unfortunate. But it 
shows that Microsoft is willing to work with its competitors to 
create an equal playing field. Future mishaps are unlikely to occur 
with a Three-Person Technical Committee. Additionally, I understand 
that Microsoft will share code with its competitors which will allow 
them to place their own programs on the operating system.
    As a recent retiree, I know that the job market is extremely 
volatile, and competition tends to create jobs. However, this 
settlement will allow Microsoft to refocus its direction in business 
and new technology with a renewal of the vigor which it has well 
demonstrated which will also create new jobs.
    With the information technology industry in a slump, this 
settlement provides a dose of medicine to a slowing economy; which 
should help revitalize other IT companies across the country.
    Best regards
    Wendell T. Starr
    Associate Editor of Transactions of the IEEE (my hobby)
    850 Webster St., Apt. 507
    Palo Alto, CA 94301



MTC-00033656

From: Todd Christensen
To: Ms. Renata B. Heese
Date: 1/28/02 2:11pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement (Support)
    Dear Ms. Heese:
    I am writing in support of the recent settlement of the long-
running antitrust lawsuit between the U.S. Department of Justice, 
state attorneys general and Microsoft Corporation. Though I applaud 
the nine state attorneys general that decided to follow the federal 
government's lead and settle the case, I am thoroughly disappointed 
that remaining state attorneys general and the District of Columbia 
have decided to further pursue this baseless case.
    The settlement is fair to all. It will allow Microsoft's 
competitors to use Microsoft's Windows operating system to 
incorporate their software programs and will give consumers more 
services and products to choose from.
    As you are well aware, members of Citizens for a Sound Economy 
have been unrelenting in our opposition to the federal government's 
antitrust case against Microsoft. For nearly 3 years, activists like 
myself have called, emailed, visited, and sent letters to the U.S. 
Department of Justice and to state attorneys' general offices 
explaining that Microsoft's actions did not harm consumers, but 
provided them with great benefits by lowering the cost and 
increasing the availability of software products. We have stressed 
that Microsoft is a pioneer in the high-technology market and that 
their products increased our familiarity with the Internet. Once 
again, I thank you for your decision to settle this unfortunate 
lawsuit against a successful and innovative company.
    Respectfully,
    Todd Christensen
    500 Chamber Way
    Chehalis, WA 98532-2200
    CC: Citizens for a Sound Economy



MTC-00033657

From: Sharyn Robbins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:16pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Sharyn Robbins
9123 219th PL NE
Redmond, WA 98053-2239
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers, although I, as well as most of my friends, was against 
this lawsuit from the start. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Sharyn Robbins



MTC-00033658

From: Oscar Garcia
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:28pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Oscar Garcia
1212 Susan Lane Apt. 168
Fort Worth, TX 76120
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S.

[[Page 30174]]

v. Microsoft case. This lengthy litigation has cost my fellow 
taxpayers and me more than $35 million, and after reviewing the 
terms of this Judgment, final approval is clearly in the public 
interest. Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Oscar Garcia



MTC-00033659

From: Jon H. Clayton
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jon H. Clayton
174 Woodland Ct.
Wetumpka, AL 36093-2211
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jon H. Clayton



MTC-00033660

From: Robert Lanzner
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:31pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Lanzner
6471 West 83rd Street
Los Angeles, CA 90045-2885
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on

[[Page 30175]]

their computers. It will also be easier to substitute competitors' 
products after purchase as well. The Judgment even covers issues and 
software that were not part of the original lawsuit, such as Windows 
XP, which will have to be modified to comply with the settlement. 
This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American consumers. We 
have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment 
portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more 
than ever, the country needs the economic stability this settlement 
can provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge 
the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Robert A. Lanzner



MTC-00033661

From: Glen Johnston
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glen Johnston
25 Buttercup Loop
Belton, TX 76513
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Glen E. Johnston



MTC-00033662

From: Dewey Howard
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:34pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Dewey Howard
915 Flat Rock Rd
Sparta, TN 38583
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Dewey Howard



MTC-00033663

From: James Feighny
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
James Feighny
252 Wyanoke Dr
San Antonio, TX 78209
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The

[[Page 30176]]

parties worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the 
benefit of taking effect immediately rather than months or years 
from now when all appeals from continuing the litigation would 
finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    James Feighny



MTC-00033664

From: Richard Travis
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:37pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Richard Travis
5449 Vanderbilt Road
Old Hickory, TN 37138-1131
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Richard E. Travis



MTC-00033665

From: Jerry Rea
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:55pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Jerry Rea
P. O. Box 934
New Smyrna Beach, , FL 32170-0934
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in

[[Page 30177]]

the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Jerry and Norma Rea



MTC-00033666

From: F. David Marschka
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:01pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
F. David Marschka
1862 Amity Drive
Lancaster, PA 17601-6234
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    F. David Marschka



MTC-00033667

From: george adams
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
george adams
707 market st
cheraw, sc 29520
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    George E. Adams



MTC-00033668

From: Glenn Dobson
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:46pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Glenn Dobson
2203 Palmersville Hwy-89
Dresden, TN 38225
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's

[[Page 30178]]

programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Glenn Dobson



MTC-00033669

From: Judith Huston
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 2:03pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Judith Huston
34800 Cadiz-Piedmont Rd.
Cadiz, OH 43907
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted. The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for 
all sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Judith L. Huston



MTC-00033670

From: Karen Shirey
To: Department of Justice
Date: 1/28/02 1:45pm
Subject: Message From a Concerned Citizen
    Dear Department of Justice:
    I support Microsoft their right of freedom to innovate. I have 
used computers and different programs since 1985 and have always 
preferred Microsoft systems and products. Had any of the other 
companies that are now trying to sue Microsoft produced better 
programs, they would have been ahead of Microsoft due to public 
demand. Using politics and trying to force a company out of business 
due to greed and jealousy is NOT going to make their product any 
better, nor make anyone choose it over Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    Karen Shirey
    1430 Grandview
    Hanover, PA 17331-9542



MTC-00033671

From: Kristin Hopkins
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:53pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Kristin Hopkins
4 Cormorant Circle
Durham, NH 03824
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid

[[Page 30179]]

the price of litigation through our taxes. Our investment portfolios 
have taken a hard hit during this battle, and now more than ever, 
the country needs the economic stability this settlement can 
provide. This settlement is in the public interest, and I urge the 
DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. 
District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Kristin E. Hopkins



MTC-00033672

From: Mark Moghab
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:47pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Mark Moghab
56 New York Ave
Congers, NY 10920
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement. This case was supposedly brought on 
behalf of American consumers. We have paid the price of litigation 
through our taxes. Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit 
during this battle, and now more than ever, the country needs the 
economic stability this settlement can provide. This settlement is 
in the public interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised 
proposed Final Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Mark Moghab



MTC-00033673

From: Paul Thutt
To: US DOJ
Date: 1/27/02 6:00pm
Subject: Comment on Microsoft AntiTrust case
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Require that Microsoft publish its file formats prior to the 
release of any upgrades to their product or the release of any new 
product. This will protect the consumer without hindering 
Microsoft's innovation or its pursuit of new markets. While I am 
certainly no fan of Microsoft and its business practices, breaking 
them up is not a solution. Require that there be no ``active 
content'' in the file format. (``Active Content'' is 
software embedded in the document file.) This would have two 
beneficial effects.
    1. Elimination of insertion of computer viruses into another 
system via a document file.
    2. No way for Microsoft to force usage of their software in 
order to make use of the document.
    With the file formats published, competing products will be able 
to read and write the consumer's data files. The primary reason that 
Microsoft is in a monopoly position is because business and 
individuals must be able to share documents. Most businesses use 
Microsoft Office products and thus the document is in Microsoft's 
proprietary file format. Other businesses and individuals must 
purchase the Microsoft product in order to be able to work as a 
team.
    Documents are the property of the business and individuals that 
produced them, and not of the manufacturer of the software used to 
save the document in a file. Empower the consumer by publishing the 
file formats. Perhaps, the IEEE standards for computer interfaces, 
floating point format, and networking protocols are good models. 
With competitor's products able to read, modify and write the shared 
files, individual preference for features and price will determine 
what products are purchased. The consumer benefits from the choice. 
Analogies are:
    ï¿½ In automobiles, fuels are standard. Gearshift 
patterns are standard. Pedal placement is standard.
    ï¿½ In computers, the PCI bus is a published standard 
created by Intel but released to the public and many vendors produce 
chip sets and interface cards to that standard.
    ï¿½ In networking, 802.11b is a published standard for 
wireless networking. There are many vendors for wireless networking 
equipment.
    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
    Paul M. Thutt
    22495 NW Phillips Road
    Hillsboro, OR 97124
    [email protected]



MTC-00033674

From: Ralph Askam
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/23/02 7:15am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Ralph Askam
4120 Nobhill Dr.
Muskegon, Mi 49441
January 23, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor

[[Page 30180]]

Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph F. Askam M. D.



MTC-00033675

From: Robert Brown
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:51pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Robert Brown
1062 U. S. route 2
Rumford, ME 04276
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest. Perhaps of greatest 
benefit to the American people, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 
the settling states will avoid additional costs and now be able to 
focus their time and resources on matters of far greater national 
significance: the war against terrorism, including homeland 
security. As noted by District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, 
who pushed for a settlement after the attacks of September 11, it is 
vital for the country to move on from this lawsuit. The parties 
worked extremely hard to reach this agreement, which has the benefit 
of taking effect immediately rather than months or years from now 
when all appeals from continuing the litigation would finally be 
exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own. Competitors also benefit from 
the provision that frees up computer manufacturers to disable or 
uninstall any Microsoft application or element of an operating 
system and install other programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot 
retaliate against computer manufactures, ISPs, or other software 
developers for using products developed by Microsoft competitors. 
Plus, in an unprecedented enforcement clause, a Technical Committee 
will work out of Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, 
at the company's expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and 
compliance with the settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    R. C. Brown



MTC-00033677

From: Stephen Scavott
To: Ms. Renata Hesse
Date: 1/28/02 1:40pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
Stephen Scavott
158 Dovecote Lane
Central Islip, ny 11722
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Ms. Hesse:
    I would like to express my support for the revised proposed 
Final Judgment in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. This lengthy 
litigation has cost my fellow taxpayers and me more than $35 
million, and after reviewing the terms of this Judgment, final 
approval is clearly in the public interest.
    Perhaps of greatest benefit to the American people, the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) and the settling states will avoid 
additional costs and now be able to focus their time and resources 
on matters of far greater national significance: the war against 
terrorism, including homeland security. As noted by District Court 
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who pushed for a settlement after the 
attacks of September 11, it is vital for the country to move on from 
this lawsuit. The parties worked extremely hard to reach this 
agreement, which has the benefit of taking effect immediately rather 
than months or years from now when all appeals from continuing the 
litigation would finally be exhausted.
    The terms of the settlement offer a fair resolution for all 
sides of this case: the DOJ, the states, Microsoft, competitors, 
consumers and taxpayers. Microsoft will not be broken up and will be 
able to continue to innovate and provide new software and products. 
Software developers and Internet service providers (ISPs), including 
competitors, will have unprecedented access to Microsoft's 
programming language and thus will be able to make Microsoft 
programs compatible with their own.
    Competitors also benefit from the provision that frees up 
computer manufacturers to disable or uninstall any Microsoft 
application or element of an operating system and install other 
programs. In addition, Microsoft cannot retaliate against computer 
manufactures, ISPs, or other software developers for using products 
developed by Microsoft competitors. Plus, in an unprecedented 
enforcement clause, a Technical Committee will work out of 
Microsoft's headquarters for the next five years, at the company's 
expense, and monitor Microsoft's behavior and compliance with the 
settlement.
    Most importantly, this settlement is fair to the computer users 
and consumers of America, on whose behalf the lawsuit was allegedly 
filed. Consumers will be able to select a variety of pre-installed 
software on their computers. It will also be easier to substitute 
competitors' products after purchase as well. The Judgment even 
covers issues and software that were not part of the original 
lawsuit, such as Windows XP, which will have to be modified to 
comply with the settlement.
    This case was supposedly brought on behalf of American 
consumers. We have paid the price of litigation through our taxes. 
Our investment portfolios have taken a hard hit during this battle, 
and now more than ever, the country needs the economic stability 
this settlement can provide. This settlement is in the public 
interest, and I urge the DOJ to submit the revised proposed Final 
Judgment to the U.S. District Court without change.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen M. Scavott



MTC-00033678

From: Casey Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 1:45pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To the Honorable Department of Justice--
    It is as a student, a technician, and an end-user that I wish to 
add my comments as per the Tunney Act concerning the settlement 
proposed by the corporation in question, Microsoft.
    Before I begin individually laying out my reasons for my views, 
I must first denounce the proposed settlement as a mockery of 
justice, the institution of the courts, the welfare of the consumer, 
and the sensibility of the media and the general public. We speak of 
punishment of criminals yet we are prepared to enact a double 
standards of rewards for crimes of business.
    The practice of the Microsoft Corporation has been established 
as a violation of antitrust laws. From the packaging of the Internet 
Explorer web browser with its operating system, fully integrate it 
with the

[[Page 30181]]

operating system of Windows to its current methods of furthering the 
hold on the software industry with Microsoft Office, Windows Media 
Player, built-in firewall for XP, .NET system, and the coupling of 
Microsoft Network with Windows XP, or its suit over the Windows 
names. This case began in 1995 and now in 2002 we are willing to 
settle with a turn of our backs.
    I could list piece-by-piece what I view as theft by this Giant. 
I could easily attempt to make my case that Microsoft has not 
produced, in general, a product solely of its own without building 
it or modeling it from a product of another company. Whether it is 
the windowing system concept (Macintosh), DOS (Caldera),Start Menu 
(Apple), Terminal Services (Symantec's pcAnywhere / AT&T Virtual 
Network Computing), firewall and multiple logins (unix, Linux 
iptables/ipchains). I could sit and justify the vantage that the 
richest man in the United States built his fortune upon the backs of 
stolen ideas. A criminal never brought to trial.
    As a student, I am dishearten to see the movements in the 
university systems to be Microsoft-centric. Database classes are 
taught with Access, programs are to be written with Visual Basic/
C++/J++, web design is taught via Frontpage, and the operating 
system of choice for labs is Microsoft Windows. At what cost? If you 
are to look at the per-seat licensing of Microsoft we are spending 
fortunes on software at the cost of a broad education. We learn by 
the bloated non-standards and hope that we can push in the real 
world. We fail to learn systems outside the deal.
    As a technician for an internet service provider, I am force to 
witness first hand the limiting force of a monopoly. When a call 
comes in the first generalized question that comes to the client is, 
``What version of Windows are you running?'', followed by 
``What version of Internet Explorer are you running?''. 
Common issues are virii, tcp/ip stack failures, win modem 
initialization strings, corrupt executables of Windows components. 
Because Internet Explorer is intergrated with the Windows operating 
system, the user interface is slower, if Internet Explorer blows up 
you lose the stability of your system, and users are unable to 
regress to a previous version or remove the faulty component. 
Security is negligible, the mail system is a petri dish for virii, 
and the networking leaves much to be desired. On a day-to-day basis, 
I have to deal with problems of Windows ``forgetting'' 
settings and devices or perpetuating unneeded data in the way of 
networking addresses. Hardware compatibility is greatly reduced as 
it as modems are software based (``winmodems''). Internet 
access setup is hindered by the persistence of MSN (The Microsoft 
Network) in terms of web browsing, messaging, dial-up networking, 
and communications compatibility.
    As an end-user, I cannot help but to feel that I have been 
violated. I used in-house networking to share information between my 
laptop, my sister's computer, and my home system. My laptop is an 
Apple Powerbook running Mac OS X, my desktop is Redhat Linux 7.2, 
and my sister's machine is Windows 2000 Professional. I have had to 
run numerous security updates on Windows 2000 and its predecessor 
Windows 98. XP, which I had test ran has holes in security large 
enough to sail the US Navy through. Non-Microsoft programs are 
``crash-proned'' by the operating system. I cannot help to 
feel that as a consumer I the Warranty of Mercantibility failed to 
apply toMicrosoft products. I deal with file sharing compatibilities 
with SMB RPC calls. I feal cheated. The cost is high-way robbery. In 
an industry where compatibility is a necessity, Microsoft continues 
to violate standards in security, networking, programming. Its 
movement to control the wealth of the industry has damaged the 
industry and the economy of the United States of America. We cannot 
pretend that keeping the ingrediants in one pantry allows every one 
to taste the pie. Unemployment, job cuts, and damages are left in 
the wake of postponed action.
    The proposed settlement is not a punitive settlement, but an 
extension in guise that fails to be in the best interests of 
justice, consumers, and the general populace. The 
``donation'' of monopoly software to an area where the 
monopoly is not in existence is the furtherment of the monopoly. It 
is the allowing of Park Place and Boardwalk with hotels to reap 
Community Chest.
    On the other hand, I agree with the proposed settlement of 
Redhat. Let Microsoft purchase the equipment, let another software 
vendor provide the software. Software that is not terms limited, 
user agreement stipulated, bug-ridden, security questionable, and 
compatibility hell. I would further liketo propose the removable of 
Internet Explorer and Media Player from current and future versions 
of the Windows OS along with the shutdown of the Microsoft Network. 
Do not allow one trust for another another. Anything short of this 
would be unfair when you look at the settlement that prevent 
AT&T from developing Unix and establishing its lead role in the 
computer industry.
    I apologize that my statements here are more brief than I had 
intended and may not be as clear and concise as I feel that is 
needed to set a better light on this blite.
    However, in closing I wish to ask that the Department of Justice 
act as a doctor and treat this case as curable form of the AIDS 
retrovirus. Medicate it. Prevent it from injecting and taking over 
new cells. Prevent it from disabling the guards against it. I also 
wish to ask the the Deparment of Justice to act as a strong Prime 
Minister. Do not do an appease. Europe settled to give Hitler one 
victory, but found that one eventually equated to many. Politics and 
history often meet with business to form one. Apply it.
    Sincerely,
    Casey W. Keller h: 828.438.8543
    1255 Mountain Glen Circle 828.438.1550
    Morganton, North Carolina 28655 c: 828.443.0515
    United States of America e: [email protected]



MTC-00033679

From: Rufus Polson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 9:37am
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Officers of Justice,
    I should note before beginning that I am Canadian, and as such 
lack standing in a United States proceeding. But it has been 
suggested to me that it would, nonetheless, not be improper to 
submit a respectfully phrased opinion, and I have serious concerns 
about this matter.
    My first worry about the proposed settlement is that it cannot 
be enforced. The only penalty for noncompliance with the settlement, 
as I understand it, is that the settlement may be extended for two 
years. But how much effect can this have? Surely a company failing 
to comply with a settlement would have little trouble continuing for 
two more years to fail to comply. The history of Microsoft's 
behaviour suggests that failing to comply with a settlement is 
within the scope of their normal actions; the likelihood of this 
happening must be taken into account in any settlement, with 
noncompliance penalties on a scale sufficient to create strong 
disincentive even to such a massive entity.
    My second is the lack of any penalty. In a country in which the 
criminal law strongly endorses retribution and deterrence as 
principles of justice, and in which corporations are legal entities 
with much of the rights and standing of persons, it seems 
appropriate to keep in mind the principles that are routinely 
applied to persons when dealing with corporate lawbreaking. This is 
the more true for corporations such as Microsoft in which the 
direction is so clearly set by a very few individuals, whose 
fortunes and identities are wrapped up closely in the corporation. 
In short, Microsoft as a corporation is guilty of a serious 
crime--this has been established. Microsoft as a corporation 
should be seen to be penalized, so that other corporations and their 
administrations realize that illegal monopolist tactics will not 
cause their companies to prosper.
    My third is the weakness of much of the language, such that many 
things which the settlement appears on the surface to prohibit are 
in fact not prohibited in any serious way, whereas it seems that 
others still can be twisted in such a manner as to actually 
legitimize practises that would not normally be considered 
acceptable. Many other submissions, as I understand it, have gone 
into detail on these issues. I will not spend words describing them 
yet again.
    Another problem is the inspectors. Their powers are unclear, and 
should be strongly specified. The selection process seems 
inappropriate--why should Microsoft have a voice in selecting 
their watchdog? It is like letting a drug dealer vote on his parole 
officer. In addition, it seems as if they are to be paid by 
Microsoft--this is another damper on independence. It seems 
more reasonable that Microsoft should disburse a sum immediately, 
sufficient for their payment for the entire duration of the 
settlement, and the Department of Justice should pay them out of 
that sum.
    Finally, the settlement seems of marginal impact even in its 
intent. Even if one were to ensure that it was complied with, clean 
up ambiguities in language so that the compliance reflects what some 
of the broader statements indicate to be the intent, and

[[Page 30182]]

empower inspection sufficiently well to verify compliance, the 
results seem unlikely to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour 
to any great extent. Rather, it seems likely that Microsoft will be 
forced to curtail a few fringe practises, leaving the general 
pattern untouched and perhaps pushing them to intensify new anti-
competitive practises in areas such as the internet and encryption, 
where they might take advantage of such laws as the DMCA to use 
proprietary encryption schemes and claim any attempt to interoperate 
with their encrypted files to be illegal.
    In short, the proposed settlement is flabby and overspecific 
even in its intent--no tiger capable of reining such a massive 
organization, but a tabby cat. Its actual wording makes it a paper 
tabby. Let us not forget that this is a corporation with such 
contempt for the administration of justice that they presented 
falsified evidence to the trial court (their so-called demonstration 
of Windows 98 running slower without Internet Explorer, which was a 
mockup fabricated for the sole purpose of deceiving the 
court--an action which would have surely left any ordinary 
defendant facing additional charges for perjury and/or contempt of 
court); how likely is it that they will comply with any judicial 
decision one micron farther than they are absolutely compelled to? 
How likely is it, in fact, that any settlement without a major 
structural component will impact Microsoft's practises in any 
significant way? In the absence of structural remedies, it is at 
least essential that any settlement present a comprehensive 
catalogue of practises which are absolutely barred, presented in 
ironclad language, with massive, immediate penalties for deviation. 
And if this case is to deter others from similar practises and, in 
general, pass the message that antitrust law remains alive in the 
United States, it should involve a substantial penalty for past 
anticompetitive actions.
    Respectfully yours,
    Rufus Polson



MTC-00033680

From: Walter Shultz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 6:48am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are many factors which render the proposed final judgement 
both ineffective and incomplete. One argument which bears the burden 
of many industry concerns is that of Dan Kegel's open letter to the 
DOJ (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). This references his 
essay on the topic which can be found at (http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html). These documents are well written and contain 
much information overlooked by the drafters of the PFJ. I have asked 
that my name be added to the open letter. Even these points do not 
complete the argument against Microsoft's monopolistic activities. 
It is evident that the drafters of the judgement have not been 
educated to a sufficient understanding of the enormous technical 
details which comprise the history of Microsoft's monopoly. These 
are, of course, too many to be discussed in a brief email. Please 
however consider the following:
    * Microsoft's policy of trademarking common industry terms (such 
as `windows', `office', 
`access', etc.) To the end of excluding competitors' use 
of standard terms in the names of their products. 
`Windows' for example is a name in use by the `X 
Windows' system for the Unix well before `Microsoft 
Windows' came to market.
    * Microsoft's habit/policy of modifying standard programming 
languages(to optimize them for the Microsoft Windows platform) and 
passing them off as the original standards.
    This is demonstrated in the development of `Microsoft 
Visual C++'(a `version' of the C++ programming 
language for `Microsoft Windows') and J++(a 
`version' of Sun
    Microsystems' Java programming language. Since the suit with 
Sun, Microsoft has begun calling their version `Active 
X') Sadly, programmers who are educated using
    Microsoft's non-standard language versions may have difficulty 
writing for any platform but `Microsoft Windows' since 
these versions do not use standard development libraries. Thus the 
pool of development talent for competing operating systems is 
effectively decreased by flooding the market with these altered 
languages.
    Thank you for your time. I wish you all the luck you will 
certainly need in effectively considering judgements in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Walter A. Shultz
    Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
    Electronics Technician
    [email protected]



MTC-00033681

From: Tyler Janisch
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 8:14am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I feel it is irresponsible and dangerous to allow Microsoft to 
exit the current proceedings with anything less than a hefty 
punishment for their anticompetitive practices (which have been 
extensively documented and proven throughout the current and 
previous cases--I'll not re-write them here).
    I believe adequate punishment should be commensurate with the 
benefits afforded Microsoft by their own misdeeds. Microsoft has 
grown to their current size by their business practices over the 
last two decades (an obvious statement)... some practices well 
within the law, many not. The anticompetitive practices have, many 
times, led to the destruction of a competing business, giving 
Microsoft that much more market/power/momentum. On and on to present 
day and their present size/control/dominance.
    I propose a return to prior `breakup' 
considerations. With near-total desktop market share and dominant 
server market share, plus near-total market share for office 
productivity software and a dominant hold on server and back-end 
software--adding to that a recently-obtained ï¿½7E80% hold on 
the web browser market (with that, exhibiting their usual 
`practices' to generate a general Net/Web dependence on 
their technologies), I feel that they should, at the least, be split 
into independent businesses focused on: Operating Systems, 
Applications, Network Technologies.
    It is obvious that any monetary punishment cannot be effective, 
short of fining them tens of billions of dollars (and even then, 
their market momentum may make that amount insignificant, in a very 
short time). Earlier considerations led to a ``make them donate 
to schools'' proposal. That has, thankfully, been thrown out 
and any similar resolution proposal should be discarded as well; any 
market Microsoft is `forced' to donate to will simply 
become another domination for Microsoft. Please consider Microsoft's 
future with utmost care. It may seem rather dramatic to say, but is 
no less true: the world's future rides on your decision.



MTC-00033682

From: [email protected]
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 6:41am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement. Others, more 
eloquent than I, will detail the reasons why this proposal will not 
restore competition in the marketplace or provide sufficient cause 
for Microsoft to change their monopolistic behavior. As a software 
professional with over twenty years experience and whose 
undergraduate course of study was in computer science, I have 
watched as Microsoft has continually impeded innovative 
developments. Microsoft follows a fairly consistent plan:
    (1) Ignore the innovation (e.g., web browser, disk compression, 
java, etc.) until it can no longer be ignored. Then,
    (2) Respond to the innovation by saying that it is without 
merit. When this is insufficient to keep the innovation from the 
market,
    (3) Either buy the developer of the innovation or 
``partner'' with them. ``Partner''ing allows 
Microsoft the time to develop the software in-house. Once the in-
house version is ready, Microsoft will ruthlessly 
``bundle'' it into their offering at ``no additional 
cost'' thereby destroying the market for the original 
developer. Finally,
    (4) Claim the innovation was due to Microsoft in the first 
place.
    For the good of the consumer, market, industry, and country this 
anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior must stop. Based on the 
the past behavior of Microsoft, with respect to previous Department 
of Justice actions, there is nothing which suggests that Microsoft 
will follow the spirit, or even the letter, of the current proposed 
settlement. They have consistently flaunted the law and have treated 
any cost or enforcement action as a normal ``cost of doing 
business.'' Without any meaningful competition they can do this 
with impunity.
    I would encourage the Department to re-evaluate this far too 
lenient settlement and devise a solution which, even in the face of 
determined Microsoft attempts at circumvention, will help restore 
competition and innovation to the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Steven C. Johnson -bs scj at marcsys 
period com
    13906 Flint Rock Road

[[Page 30183]]

    Rockville, Maryland 20853-2649 U.S.A.



MTC-00033683

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Micrsoft ATR
Date: 1/28/02 11:36pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To Whom it May Concern:
    Pursuant to the Tunney Act, I am writing to comment on the 
proposed settlement of the United States vs. Microsoft antitrust 
case.
    There are several significant failures of the proposed 
settlement. I will limit my comments to one specific problem.
    I believe Microsoft should give $1 billion in cash to help 
schools, instead of software and some money. This would seem to only 
hurt Microsoft's competitors in the education market as it is 
difficult to compete with free software. A far better settlement 
might be for Microsoft to give their proposed $1 billion--in 
cash--to an independent foundation, which will provide our most 
needy schools with the computer technology of their choice.
    Thank you for the opportunity to share my opinion about this 
very important decision.
    Sincerely,
    Jeremy Zane
    Network Administrator
    University of Oregon School of Law



MTC-00033684

From: Marc Brenner
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 11:43pm
Subject: Fw: Microsoft Settlement revised letter with address and 
phone #
---- Original Message ----
From: Marc Brenner
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I and my family feel that the proposed settlement will not 
benefit the public interest. Microsoft should be forced to open its 
applications to other platforms, so that software and hardware from 
other vendors will run without crashing with Microsoft products and 
so that other platforms can develop and integrate with Microsoft 
applications.
    The court should hold public proceedings under the Tunney Act to 
give all parties the abilities to participate in settlement.
    Thank you for your consideration.
    Marc Brenner
    835 Topper Lane
    Lafayette, CA 94549 Ph: 925 283 3408



MTC-00033685

From: Michael James Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 8:56am
Subject: Simple to impelement remedys.
    Dear Sirs,
    Microsoft clearly has maintained a monopoly via unlawful means. 
They do not deserve the public's trust, as they do not have our best 
interest in mind.
    Most behavioral or structural remedies are too hard to 
effectively enforce on an adaptable company such as Microsoft. So 
instead affect a policy change for the Federal Government through 
careful restrictions on Microsoft.
    Switch the entire federal government over from MS office and 
mail products to other companies products like Sun Microsystem's 
StarOffice products. Use an open file format, such as Rich Text, 
Html, or Latex as the standard for documents. Word documents can be 
easily changed over to these types through its SaveAs command, and 
this process can be automated through simple programs most 
programmers could write in a couple hours.
    This sounds like an expensive switch over. Have Microsoft pay 
for the manpower to switch over all agencies. Make them split the 
cost of any new licenses 50%/50%.
    To make this switch within the power of the court, you would 
have to phrase the judgement in a way similar to: -----
    All licenses granted to the federal government of Microsoft 
Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP are hereby revoked. 
(The contracts cancelled).
    A new 5 year license is given in lieu of the old license of each 
copy of that software.
    Microsoft may not issue new licenses to the government for any 
Non-Operating System product. Microsoft may not bundle any office 
productivity software into its Operating Systems. This is in effect 
for the next 10 years.
    Microsoft will pay all labor costs associated with switching to 
new office products, as well as 50% of the cost of all replacement 
software.
    Any state or municipal governments may also have these same 
terms if they request it.
    This seems to be an easy to enforce and equitable judgement that 
can be levied against Microsoft as a punishment, and does not cost 
any party but Microsoft an undue expense, while still being fair to 
Microsoft.
    The only party remaining to be dealt with is the OEM's who have 
been forced into licensing contracts with Microsoft. To remedy that 
situation, allow any of them to cancel their contracts with 
Microsoft at any time in the next 5 years, and enforce a single 
PUBLISHED price for all OEM software purchases of Microsoft 
software. Allow compulsory licencing to at that price to any OEM 
that wants it.
    Thank you for your time.
    Yours truly,
    Michael Langford



MTC-00033686

From: Mike Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 8:29pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello Judge,
    I'm am writing this message to convey my opinion on the 
Microsoft settlement.
    I feel that Microsoft is guilty of the charges brought by the 
government. I am greatly disappointed at the settlement. I read it 
the day it was released and quite frankly, I was appalled. And then 
to read a few weeks later, Microsoft's proposed settlement in civil 
suits where Microsoft would give computers and software to the 
education market told me that Microsoft has not learned. The 
proposed settlement would have devastated Apple Computer's lead in 
the education market! I used to work for Digital Equipment 
Corporation. I ``heard stories'', many first hand, of the 
practices Microsoft used to great effect against DEC. Stories of 
``acquired'' technologies, of Mr. Gates asking that 
competing technologies be cancelled, of Microsoft not pushing DEC's 
Alpha chip. Yes, they are ``stories''. Many were settled 
in out of court settlements so that we'll never know the final 
truth, but they are indicative of business practices practiced by a 
monopoly.
    To fairly settle this court action, I propose the following: 
(Not limited to these, just some things I believe should be 
addressed).
    Open standards of document formats. Microsoft Office is the 
standard. Allow other companies to compete on form and function and 
innovation.
    . A business practices oversight committee that has real power 
to keep Microsoft in check. Microsoft should have no say in who 
would be on this committee.
    . Limit Microsoft's expansion into media. They have MSN, MSNBC, 
etc.. I don't want to watch ``All Microsoft, All the 
time''. People who don't know better will see Microsoft on TV 
and on their computer and be ``locked in''. How does 
someone compete fairly when everything says 
``Microsoft''?? If anything needs to be split from the 
main company, it's the media portion. It is truly scary.
    . Mandate government use of alternatives to Microsoft products. 
There's no good reason for the government to be feeding a monopoly. 
There are excellent operating systems out there. (Linux, OpenVMS, HP 
UX, etc..)
    . Mandate to Microsoft that the government will only use open 
standard formats for things like documents and programming, and 
networking interfaces. Microsoft must stop practicing ``embrace 
and extend'' where they take an open standard, add their 
extensions, and lock out others. In conclusion, I would hope that 
the court will ensure that Microsoft does not walk away from this 
with an slap on the wrist and a virtual ``ok'' to continue 
its predatory practices.
    I thank you for your time and your patience in reading this 
message.
    mike
    [email protected]
    http://www.yelof.com



MTC-00033687

From: The Amazing Llama
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 12/8/02 2:37am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    To whom it may concern,
    It is my belief, as a computer hobbyist and programmer and as a 
citizen of California, that the Microsoft AntiTrust case will not do 
anything to:
    (a) remedy the situation that Microsoft has put the computer 
industry into
    (b) punish Microsoft for its illegal actions, of which it has 
been convicted.
    The proposal does not even attempt to do either of these things. 
Instead, it scolds the company for its bad deeds and politely asks 
them not to do it again. If it does not comply with this, it will be 
asked again to stop.
    I am left to wonder if this would ever stop anyone from doing 
anything that they wanted to be doing-- and Microsoft has 
proved again and again that what it wants to do is control the 
computer industry by any means

[[Page 30184]]

necessary. The proposal needs to make Microsoft pay for their 
actions, and they need to be punished for the results.
    If Microsoft were a person (which is what a corporation models), 
they would be fined and jailed for these actions. This sort of idea, 
extended to a corporate level, would therefore make simple sense. 
Fine the company (and base the fine on the amount of money they 
make, and remember that that is a whole lot of money). Then put 
restrictions on them so that they cannot repeat their actions. If 
they do repeat their actions, BREAK UP THE COMPANY. Or at the very 
least force them to open source Windows. These are the only 
two-- let me repeat that-- the ONLY two threats that 
Microsoft is afraid of. There is no fine that they will not recoup, 
no apology they cannot falsify, no time limit they will not lay low 
for. They will, as they have shown time and time again, revert to 
business as usual: bully everyone else with the power that you hold 
by owning Office and Windows.
    Remember that this case came to court largely because Microsoft 
flaunted the 1995 court decision that essentially did what the new 
proposal will do again: shake a stern finger at them, give them a 
tongue-lashing, and send them on the way after they have promised 
not to do it again. Remember that Microsoft made that promise six 
years ago, and making it again now will be no more binding, and 
Microsoft will pay even less attention to it, because they have more 
power and more markets than they did then.
    The fact you would give them as much power as you have in the 
proposal stages is evidence of their power: the only way that 
Microsoft could get a more comfortable punishment would be if they 
were forced to give their excess software away into a market that 
they did not control, such as education (which you probably know is 
their proposed solution to their current antitrust case with the 
private companies suing them).
    This is evidenced by the utter uselessness of the proposal, and 
by the amount fo control Microsoft has of the execution of the 
``punishments'' laid out within it. For instance, that 
they can decide what parties to give out documentation and help to 
is merely giving them another weapon, and making that weapon 
sacrosanct in the process, because it is not a ``weapon'' 
that they are using to their advantage but a 
``punishment'' that they must follow. Also, the fact that 
they are given a say at all in the council of three that oversees 
them is imbecilic. A man put in jail does not get to choose his 
jailmates or his prison guards, and Microsoft should not either.
    Incidentally, Steve Satchell would be a great choice for the 
committee. He has a good amount of experience in consumer software, 
hardware, and OS design. He is further elevated by his lack of ties 
to other companies in the industry who would possibly gain by his 
actions. Perhaps what angers me most about the current proposal is 
that it is being done ``to help the computer industry in these 
times of economic turmoil,'' which can be translated from PR-
speech to English as ``to make people buy Windows XP, which 
will make them buy lots of new computers, which will boost the 
computer industry.'' This is a short-sighted remedy to a deep-
seated problem. People buying computers now will keep everyone in 
the industry afloat, but it will be best for Microsoft, who makes 
money off of each computer sold. Worse, the short-sighted remedy 
only buries the problem deeper: it strengthens every company's 
dependence on Microsoft, both in fact and in mindset. Essentially, 
you are sending the message that without Microsoft, the economy is 
doomed. And that is to say that without someone flagrantly breaking 
the law, the economy cannot survive. And that is not a message that 
you should be sending. Microsoft has broken the law. Remember that. 
This is a fact that has been proven in court twice, and the supreme 
court decided that it was not worth their time to hear the 
arguments, because there is little chance that the 12 highest judges 
in our great country would find the facts any less factual: real 
companies have really been hurt by Microsoft, and they have lost 
real profits. -Seth A. Roby 



MTC-00033688

Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I want to offer my support for the settlement with Microsoft, 
which is to be finalized at the end of the month. Although the case 
against Microsoft seemed to have merit, Microsoft appears to be the 
victim of having not contributed to the right political campaign at 
the right time. A break-up of Microsoft would lead to more questions 
and further undermine the economy, so a compromise is in the 
interest of everyone.
    Efforts at breaking up Microsoft are far beyond what is 
necessary to encourage more competition in the software industry. To 
the lay person, it would seem that the government is out to get big 
corporations, like in the tobacco industry, in order to reap a 
financial whirlwind. The remedial steps Microsoft has agreed to have 
in some cases surpassed the government's complaints, so in the 
interest of fair play, it is time to end further litigation. As a 
result of constant monitoring by a committee of software experts, as 
agreed to in the settlement, the terms would appear to be verifiable 
and an effective tool to allow more players to thrive in the 
software market. Please allow common sense to prevail and this 
extremely valuable piece of the American economy to stay intact.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Kenneth Sweeney



MTC-00033689

Santa Barbara Industrial Association www.sbia.org
2141 Victoria Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 . Tel 
805-965-9415
Fax 964-7915 . e-mail: [email protected]
January 24, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Support the settlement agreement and end the Microsoft lawsuit. 
The Microsoft lawsuit has already wasted over $40 million of 
taxpayers money. Even worse, this misguided lawsuit, which was filed 
in the name of preserving competition, will stifle innovation, hurt 
consumers and penalize success. Microsoft has been a model for a 
corporate success story and the pursuit of the American Dream. Over 
the past 10 years, Microsoft has lowered its prices, created a 
better product, and invested enormous sums of money in research and 
development. This doesn't sound like monopolistic behavior by any 
standard. The federal government should not reduce a company's 
incentive to innovate.
    Government intervention into the world of high tech programming 
and design sets a dangerous and potentially disastrous precedent. 
Dictating to Microsoft what technology it can develop to increase 
the effectiveness of existing products or meet the rapidly expanding 
needs of users could cripple the technological innovation that has 
been the hallmark of our high tech, internet economy.
    The Microsoft lawsuit hurts consumers, rather than helps them. 
Rather than protecting consumers, drastic remedies such as breaking 
up Microsoft would be a disaster for consumers and businesses. The 
integration and standardization Windows brought us has been a boon 
for the public as well as for our economic productivity. What Bill 
Gates understood, much to his competitors'' chagrin was the 
consumers--people who use computers, not live 
computers--want an affordable and reliable system that works 
with and understands other systems.
    Government intervention into the world of high tech programming 
and design sets a dangerous and potentially disastrous precedent. 
Dictating to Microsoft what technology it can develop to increase 
the effectiveness of existing products or meet the rapidly expanding 
needs of users could cripple the technological innovation that has 
been the hallmark of our high tech, internet economy.
    One could argue in fact that the genesis of the huge decline in 
the Nasdaq, which so far has resulted in more that $2 trillion of 
lost wealth, primarily the result of the government's sustained 
attack on Microsoft's right to innovate. After all, today Microsoft, 
tomorrow Intel. Microsoft appears to be a Government target because 
of their success as a company. We used to reward success and 
innovation, rather than attack a company because of their success. 
Microsoft's success should be viewed as an asset, not a liability. 
The consumer has benefitted from Microsoft's success. The prospect 
of future benefits to the consumer should not be stifled by our own 
government. Similarly, other companies should not have to worry that 
their success could someday be threatened by heavy-handed government 
action, oppressive attorney fees and a legal action designed to 
harrass, publicly smear and possibly even break apart the business. 
The message we must send is that success should be rewarded and not 
punished. We hope the consent

[[Page 30185]]

decree is adopted and the federal lawsuit is dropped.
    Sincerely,
    Joe Armendarz
    Executive Director
    SB County Industrial Association



MTC-00033690

James F. Taylor, Jr.
302 Norma Circle
Greenville, TX 75402
December 9,2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Renata:
    In response to the recent ruling regarding the Microsoft 
antitrust case, I would like to place my comments into the public 
record regarding the proposed settlement between the Department of 
Justice and Microsoft. I would like to address a few items that make 
the proposed settlement both ineffective and considerably flawed.
    First, in regard to the proposed identification of who is and 
who is not eligible for disclosure of APIs by Microsoft, the 
exclusion of noncommercial entities from this remedy is both 
inadequate and will serve to further hamper free programs like 
Apache Web server and Sendmail. These programs are direct 
competitors of Microsoft's IIS and Exchange Servers, and they will 
not receive any API assistance that is guaranteed to commercial 
competitors.
    Open Source products designated to allow free operating systems 
like OpenBSD an Linux to talk to Windows over networks would be 
irrevocably crushed by this loophole. Section III(j)(2), part (c) 
specifically hinders any free software from benefiting from 
Microsoft's published APIs by the language:
    * * *(c) meets reasonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business,
    Second, the remedy should address the incorporation of Microsoft 
products such as Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player without 
consent of the consumer during installation. It also should address 
the lack.of an easy method to uninstall these programs should the 
consumer desire another 3rd party too to be used in place of the 
bundled applications. Microsoft is leveraging its OS monopoly 
against third party Vendors like Opera and MusicMatch Jukebox by 
bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player without an 
uninstall or a choice during installation. Microsoft should, as part 
of the remedy, be forced to allow these tools to be removed or at 
the very least be uninstalled by both OEMS and end users. It is a 
simple remedy that Microsoft could comply with the next version of 
Windows or with a service pack for current Windows users.
    Third, the remedy does not go far enough to force the 
publication of APIs and other interoperable portions, such as 
document formats, of Windows itself. These protocols should be open 
and subject to review from the entire industry. In addition, changes 
need to be decided not by Microsoft, who have proven time and again 
to cripple APIs to further their own programs at the expense of 
other third party programs. All of this was done without the consent 
of the user, and in most cases, was done without the user's 
knowledge as part of a ``service pack'' or other update to 
the program. All third party vendors of applications directly 
competing with Microsoft made their file formats and APIs known so 
the interoperability of their programs with Windows could be 
accomplished quickly. It is time for Microsoft to reciprocate 
without question or loophole.
    Thank you for reading my comments, and I hope that these 
suggestions will be helpful in crafting a fair and equitable remedy 
that benefits not only the consumer, but Microsoft and its 
competitors. The computing landscape should not be as barren as it 
is today, with the ashes of hundreds of competitors to Microsoft 
crushed and broken by Microsoft's heavy-handed and illegal tactics. 
Despite Microsoft's claim to the contrary, these remedies will not 
stifle innovation, and they will not hinder Microsoft in any way 
other than to prevent it from leveraging its market share against 
its competitors. If these remedies are enacted and the loopholes 
closed, Microsoft will have to do what it has not had to do for a 
long time in the marketplace. They will have to compete on merit and 
innovation, rather than crushing its competition under the boot of 
their monopoly.
    I appreciate your time and attention.
    Sincerely,
    James E. Taylor, Jr.
    302 Norma Circ
    Greenville, TX 75402



MTC-00033691

FROM :
Jul. 20 2001 05:50AM P2
FAX NO. :
Rockingham County Republican Party
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As the former Assistant Legal Counsel for the North Carolina 
Republican Party, I have a strong interest in how our legal system 
interacts with business. While many people have various opinions on 
the merits of the Microsoft case, most reasonable people can agree 
that if both the Justice Department and Microsoft reached a 
settlement, then it's time to put the litigation behind us.
    It is for this reason that I call on Judge KolIar Kotelly to 
approve the settlement between Microsoft and the federal government. 
It is important that we do not interfere with it at business 
unnecessarily at any level of government, state or federal. That is 
why since 1999, I have been greatly troubled by the federal 
government's attempt to bring about unprecedented harsh penalties 
against Microsoft. That's why, as a lawyer, I felt encouraged when I 
read of the landmark settlement. We've got to minimize further 
consumer harm by freeing up Microsoft to be innovative, creative and 
cost-effective. I know that I rely on Microsoft computer operating 
systems on a regular basis, and I believe that they are the highest 
quality products available. These products will only improve with 
the closure of this legal matter.
    Please let Judge Kollar-Kotelly that I strongly support the 
settlement, and I hope this balance of this proceeding will end 
soon. In that fashion, Microsoft can return to the business of 
innovation and developing new products. Also, government attorneys 
can get back to more pressing cases.
    Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Matthew W. Smith
    Vice Chairman
    PO Box 528--Eden, NC 27289



MTC-00033692

FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jul. 20 2001 05: 51am p3
R. Lee Currie, Jr.
Former Executive Director
North Carolina Republican Party
104 Brookline Court--Clayton North Carolina
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As the former Executive Director of the North Carolina 
Republican Party, I have a uniquely political perspective on why the 
suit against Microsoft was filed. In short Microsoft's competitors 
did not like the fact that Microsoft is the established leader in 
technological innovation in the United States, and used the legal 
system in an attempt to stop them from maintaining their market 
share.
    This is not the first time this trick has been tried. Anyone 
remember the ill-fated USFL (United States Football League)? All was 
well until the NFL (National Football League) outclassed, outshined 
and outperformed the USFL in terms of market share. The next thing 
you know, the USFL files a federal antitrust suit against the NFL, 
claiming unfair business practices. It didn't work: the NFL is more 
popular than ever, and no one even remembers what the USFL acronym 
stands for. Anti-trust violation? No. Superior product? Yes. Sound 
familiar?
    This time, Microsoft's competitors have taken the stakes to a 
whole new level by lobbying the federal government to drive a stake 
in the Microsoft's heart. The competitors'' lawyers and 
lobbyists won't stop until they destroy their competitor. Again, 
Microsoft has the superior product, so their opponents wilt try to 
continue to play a game with the legal system until they get their 
way.
    That is why I call on Judge Kollar Kotelly to approve the 
proposed settlement between Microsoft and the federal government. 
The case should be settled now. Let's not give Microsoft's 
competitors mow time to lobby, cajole and influence important 
decision makers that the settlement isn't in the government's 
interest, Let's close the chapter

[[Page 30186]]

of this unfortunate series of events by approving the settlement. 
Thank you for your consideration of my comments,
    Sincerely,
    Lee Currie



MTC-00033693

FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jul. 20 2001 05:45AM P2
North Carolina Federation of Republican Men
6706 Queen Anne's Drive
Raleigh, NC 27613
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As a small businessman who depends upon Microsoft for both my 
home and office computer, I am gratified that the federal government 
is now willing to settle its case against Microsoft. It is my 
sincere hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly will approve this settlement.
    As State President of the North Carolina Federation of 
Republican Men, I represent many men, who, like me, lost money in my 
retirement account when tech stocks plummeted, an occurrence that is 
attributable the suit against Microsoft. I'm relatively young, and 
didn't have a tremendous amount of money to lose. I feel sorry for 
those who lost more.
    As a former Legislative Liaison of the North Carolina Automobile 
Dealers Association, I am all too aware that business can work in 
concert with, or in opposition to, government, I am aware of the 
tremendous cost to business that occurs when lawsuits are 
continually pursued. They drain resources and energy from employees 
that should be spent in other things. And lawsuits usually cost the 
taxpayers money This one certainly has.
    The reasons I have outlined are why I hope Judge Kollar Kotelly 
will accept the settlement and let all parties move forward, Thank 
you for your consideration of my comments.
    Sincerely,
    Dee Stewart
    State President



MTC-00033694

Jul. 20 2001 05:45AM P3
FROM :
FAX NO. :
Rockingham County Republican Party
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As the Chairman of the Rockingham County Republican Party, I am 
deeply concerned about the effect that prolonging the federal 
government's lawsuit against Microsoft would have on businesses in 
our community and other communities across North Carolina. I want to 
request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approve the settlement that is 
pending.
    The proposed settlement will be good for all parties. There is a 
perception that Microsoft's competitors played a role in trying to 
work against Microsoft's position with politicians and the media. We 
don't need more tug of war between these litigants. We need to 
accept the settlement and move forward. Because the economy is in 
poor condition, it is imperative that we put this matter behind us. 
Both the industry and the government attorneys need to focus on 
other matters, in my opinion. As Chairmen of the Rockingham County 
Republican Party, I am encouraging all of our members to support the 
settlement.
    As inspect the components of the settlement, I believe it to be 
fair to both sides, with Microsoft guaranteeing certain provisions 
and the government getting enforcement provisions never before seen 
in an anti-trust settlement. I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly 
approves this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Berger, Jr.
    PO Box 528--Eden, NC 27289



MTC-00033695

FROM :
FAX NO. :
Jul. 20 2001 05:46AM P4
North Carolina Federation of Young Republicans
7465 Bluff Point Lane
Denver, NC 28037
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    In addition to serving as Chairman of the North Carolina 
Federation of Young Republicans, I am also the co-owner of a small 
computer business, I use Microsoft products every day to enhance my 
productivity, as well as to improve the level of service I offer my 
customers.
    I realize what a big difference that Microsoft; has made in the 
working lives of millions of Americans. I have written numerous 
letters to North Carolina's Congressional delegation, requesting a 
quick and mutually beneficial settlement of the Microsoft suit. What 
small business owner wouldn't agree that the lawsuit filed by the 
federal government was quite harmful to the high-tech sector as well 
as the stock market.
    As Chairman of the North Carolina Federation of Young 
Republicans, I calI on Judge Kollar-Kotelly to approve the 
reasonable settlement which has been approved by the company, the 
federal government as well as nine of the states which had formerly 
sued Microsoft. American business needs to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Jason Saine
    State Chairman



MTC-00033696

FAX NO.:
Jul. 20 2001 05:39AM P2
REPRESENTATIVE
76TH DlSTRlCT
OFFICE ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
E-MAIL:
HOME ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE & FAX:
MICHAEL O. HARRlNGTON
303 LEGISLATIVE BUILDlNG
RALEIGH, NC 27801-1096
(919) 733-5823
(919) 754-3175 FAX
[email protected]
3324 LINCOLN LANE
GASTONIA, NC 28056
(704)853-8574
January 9, 2002
COMMITTEES:
APPROPRlATlON$
SUBcoMMITTEE ON INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
SCIENCe & TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    In addition to serving in the North Carolina House of 
Representatives from Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties, I am also a 
small businessman. In the state legislature I serve on the Science 
and Technology Committee and the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Information Technology.
    In those posts, I am one of the decision makers as to where the 
state of North Carolina is able to spend its money on technology. 
From that perspective and in my own business, I realize what a big 
difference Microsoft has made in the working lives of millions of 
Americans.
    I have, in the past, been the author of articles concerning the 
Microsoft situation in which I take the position that the lawsuit 
filed by the federal government was unhealthy for the high-tech 
sector in particular but for business in general.
    A major decline in Microsoft stock and in the shares of many 
high-tech companies happened the day following a breakdown in 
negotiations between Microsoft, the federal government, and the 
states'' attorneys general who would not agree to a settlement. 
The pain inflicted on so many people's savings and stock accounts 
was mighty. Of course, the Microsoft incident was not the only 
reason for stock to go `down, but it was one reason.
Ms. Renata Hesse
January 9, 2002
    Today, I understand that Judge Kollar-Ketelly has a reasonable 
settlement that has been approved by the company, the federal 
government, as well as nine of the states which had formerly sued 
Microsoft, including New York.
    I would heartily endorse this settlement and hope that the good 
judge would as well. All parties need to move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Michael O. Harrington
    Representative Michael O. Harrington
    District 76

[[Page 30187]]

    North Carolina General Assembly
    MOH:jal



MTC-00033697

John C. Comeau
2 Rita Lane
Littleton MA 01464
Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    I am a member of Americans for Technology Leadership, an 
organization of citizens, consumers, and high-tech professionals who 
are dedicated to minimizing unnecessary regulatory intrusion into 
the information technology industry. For this reason, I am writing 
to urge the court to accept the settlement reached in the antitrust 
case between Microsoft and the Justice Department lawyers. This case 
has been a tremendous drain on the creative energies of the 
technology world, and its settlement can only be a positive for the 
country as we deal, with a lingering recession.
    The information technology industry is dependent on the freedom 
to innovate that is essential foe new products to come into being. 
The implications of the suggested remedies beyond those reached in 
the agreement are ominous. The high-tech sector cannot endure the 
added impediment of a stultifying new regulatory presence by the 
federal government. If the issue is serious wrongs on the part of 
Microsoft, then punish them and move on. If, however, the issue is 
creating a windfall for less successful competitors, then please 
don't punish the rest of us by imposing new sanctions, and 
regulatory hoops to jump through.
    This country will be much better served if the Justice 
Department spends its time concerned with real threats to our safety 
and liberty, and if the companies involved in high-tech all got back 
to innovating rather than litigating. I ask that the Justice 
Department advocate this settlement to the judge, and in doing so 
serve the American people, and the nation's greater interests.
    Respectfully,
    John C. Comeau



MTC-00033698

January 16, 2002
Ms. Susan Johnson
11794 Rockaway Lane
Fairfax, VA 22030
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Now that the federal government has finally settled its long 
antitrust case against Microsoft, I hope states still involved with 
the suit will do the same. It is time for consumers to come together 
and move the economy and our country in a positive direction--a 
forward and economically strong direction.
    The settlement's provisions protect Microsoft's ability to 
continue to be innovative and, this hopefully, will revitalize 
competition and the technology industry for the betterment of us 
all. Consumers and investors will reap the benefits of the 
settlement and this should help to get the engines running toward a 
healthy and properous economic stance.
    Thank you for your consideration
    Sincerely,
    Susan N. Johnson



MTC-00033699

January 15, 2002
Ms. Susan Fujii
13859 Wakley Court
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I was pleased to read that the federal government has finally 
settled its long antitrust case against Microsoft. I hope the other 
states still involved with the suit will do so as well. Now is not 
the time to waste taxpayer dollars on drawn out lawsuits. It is time 
for the government and the high tech industry to come together to 
rally our nation's economy.
    If the settlement can provide a jump start to better economic 
indicators and rev up a once highly stimulating technology sector, 
than the government should not stand in the way. Our nation, more 
than ever, needs some positive news and a glimmer of hope for a 
positive future. I hope the Justice Department will do what it can 
to provide the citizens of this county that hope and encourage it to 
grow into ever increasing prosperity.



MTC-00033700

January 20, 2002
Mr. David Foreman
13859 Wakley Court
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, D. C. 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse.
    I was pleased to read that the federal government has finally 
settled its long antitrust case against Microsoft. I hope the other 
states still involved with the suit will do so as well. Now is not 
the time to waste taxpayer dollars on drawn out lawsuits. It is time 
for the government and the high tech industry to come together to 
rally our nation`s economy.
    If the settlement can provide a jump start to better economic 
indicators and rev up a once highly stimulating technology sector, 
than the government should not stand in the way. Our nation, more 
than ever, needs some positive news and a glimmer of hope for a 
positive future. I hope the Justice Department will do what it can 
to provide the citizens of this county that hope and encourage it to 
grow into ever increasing prosperity.
    Regards,



MTC-00033701

January 16, 2002
Ms. Kathy Buckley
14701 St. Germain Drive
Centreville, VA 20121
Ms. Renata Hesse
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    As jobless rates and economic indicators continue to tell 
consumers that times are getting worse, I think Microsoft's 
settlement with the federal government could provide a beginning 
bright light. By settling the case, we could once again see the 
competitive prosperity of the 90's foster the necessary kick the 
economy needs to move in a positive direction. The high tech 
industry has been a driving force for our nation in recent years and 
if Microsoft's settlement revitalizes competition, than we should 
welcome this opportunity. This long drawn out case should be 
resolved once and for all, and the focus should be on lowering the 
jobless rate, increasing consumer confidence and strengthening our 
economy,
    Best regards,



MTC-00033702

JAN-17-2002 02:49 AM P. 01
Jan-l0-2002 08:28 From NEW HAMPSHIRE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
16032716889 T-186 P.001/002
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
legislative Office Building, 33 North State Street Concord, NW., 
03301-6328, TEL:(803)271-3317
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-733-2964
COMMITTEE ON MUNIClPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I am writing to express support for the settlement proposed in 
the case of U.S. v. Microsoft.
    Although I am not in the habit of submitting public comment in a 
case like this, I believe that the time has come to stop the 
persecution of this company, stop the needless spending of tax 
dollars, and allow this company to get back to business.
    For many months now, the Federal government has pursued this 
company and threatened to break up its operations because of claims 
of its monopoly status. Finally, the parties have come to an 
agreement that is far reaching and addressee all the courts 
concerns. This agreement should be awarded with acceptance by the 
government.
    Extraordinary amounts of money already been spent prosecuting 
this case. As a state representative, I work hard to make we that 
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and believe the Federal government 
should do SO too. Many citizens of this country are out of work and 
are struggling to make ends meet, Americans are less concerned about 
the issues between computer companies and much more concerned about 
how they are going to provide for their families and their 
future& We should all take a lesson from this and end needless 
spending as quickly as possible.
    Microsoft has been a a strong force in our economy and should be 
allowed to get back to the business of serving consumers. I hope you 
will approve this settlement as quickly as possible.

[[Page 30188]]

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment in this important 
matter.
    Sincerely,
    Betsey Patten
    State Representative, Carroll County, District 9



MTC-00033703

David A Graham
401 Oak Avenue
Elizabeth, Pa.
15037-1631
January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-000
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The Microsoft Anti Trust case settlement has been a long time 
coming. I am very glad to see that there is now a light at the end 
of the tunnel. However, I don't see how anyone can even debate the 
settlment's fairness. Microsoft is giving up a great deal to end 
this lawsuit, going so far as to give their competitors an unfair 
edge in the future.
    I use Microsoft products both at work and at home. For years 
Microsoft has provided American consumers like me with superior 
products, creating innovative and compatible technologies useful in 
so many areas. Now, with the settlement Microsoft has pledged to 
share information, including the internal interfaces for its Windows 
operating system, with its competitors and make it easier for people 
to install non-Microsoft products in Windows.
    The government has more important matters to deal with. It 
should not be intervening in the affairs of private companies. 
Please hold the settlement and allow Microsoft to move on with their 
business. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    David A. Graham i I C/c Sen R Sanrorum I



MTC-00033704

Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
January 16, 2002
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    Please allow me to add mine to the voices of citizens from 
across this country who believe that enough is enough with regards 
to the Microsoft ``antitrust'' case. By this point any 
casual observer can see that the consuming public stands to gain 
nothing by a protracted fight, and that only the dubious efforts of 
Microsoft's rivals have kept afloat any desperate attempt to skew 
the market to favor certain players. (And intrude government 
regulators where they are not needed at the same time.) Even the 
Justice Department has seen fit to reach an agreement to settle, and 
that is why I write: let's end this and move on.
    I am the owner of an innovative start-up company myself, and I 
sympathize with Mr. Gates billionaire though he is, who seems to be 
targeted for his success. Although my business is not software 
related (and I have no affiliation to Microsoft) I had the 
opportunity to tour the Redmond Microsoft campus a few years ago, 
and came away impressed by the incredible focus and dedication to 
excellence the Microsoft workers all seemed to have. Perhaps Oracle, 
Sun, AOL and the others would be better served to dump their 
lawyers, and hire some people who can mirror the Microsoft work 
ethic and passion for excellence.
    Sincerely,
    D P. Sweeney



MTC-00033705

Brian K. Wright
101 Taylor Street
Littleton, Massachusetts 01460
Renata HeSse Trial Attorney
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington DC 2O530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    It is my understanding that the justice Department is 
recommending a settlement agreement in the Microsoft case to Judge 
Kollar Kotelly that is amicable to both sides. I think that is a 
wise move for our country and the economy at this time.
    I fully support the Justice Department enforcing the antitrust 
laws, and the pursuit of Microsoft if they were deemed to be in 
violation. However, if the federal lawyers believe that the 
settlement properly punishes Microsoft, as well as establishes 
measures to make sure it doesn't happen again, then isn't this sort 
of compromise what we should hope for? If the Microsoft rivals seek 
more remedies specific to their businesses then that is not the 
public interest being served. Crippling this major innovator and job 
producer shouldn't be anyone's goal.
    I have the vantage point of being someone who has co- founded a 
national trade association in the high-tech field, as well as having 
served as an Assessor in a town with many high-tech businesses. I 
can state with confidence that what the economy needs now is a 
healthy Microsoft and its competitors all returning to the business 
of designing and selling software and systems, I hope this 
settlement helps to achieve that.



MTC-00033706

P. 0. Box 2555, Woburn, Ma 01888-1055
781-933-8228 Fax 781-933-2091
    I am a small businessman who would like to express my support 
for the proposal to end the case against Microsoft by settlement.
    For three years the government has wasted millions of tax 
dollars trying to chase Microsoft, mostly because other companies 
have tried to get the government to do what they can't: beat them. 
This case has not served America well and may have given foreign 
companies a chance to get into American information industries. We 
need to show more unity in this country in ways, and ending this 
case would be a great symbol.
    I appreciate the chance to speak out, and I understand the 
volume of mail you must have to go through. I hope my concerns, and 
those of others are brought before the Judge.. It's time to end the 
case against Microsoft.
    Sincerely,
    William J. Cavalucci
    WJP Realty



MTC-00033707

North Java
4127 Route 98
PO Box 206
North Java, KY 14113
535-7313
Fax 535-7487
DAVE REISDORF, INC.
I6 Clinton St. PO Box 395 Batavia, NY 14021
Phone 343-4453 Fax 343-641 I Toll Free (888) 
255-0087
January 14, 2002
Warsaw
3758 S. Warsaw Rd.
Route 19
Warsaw, NY 14568
786-2560
Fax 786-3556
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    We have been following with interest the government's extensive 
role in the Microsoft Antitrust Suit.
    I am very pleased that a tentative settlement has been reached. 
The last thing our nation's economy needs is additional litigation 
that will lead to further regulation of the high-tech industry. 
Anti-trust laws were meant to protect consumers. It appears 
companies are using them to protect themselves from strong 
competition. Settlement in this case is in everyone's best 
interests. We the consumer's of the United States can certainly come 
up with better uses for the millions of dollars the government has 
spent to fight this case. Microsoft's innovation has lead to lower 
prices for software and increased benefits for the consumer.
    If antitrust law is in place to protect the consumer, where is 
your case? Please settle this and move-on. It is in the best 
interest of the government, the people and the economy.
    Sincerely,
    Dave Reisdorf, Inc.
    Anthony L Peca, Jr.
    Sales and Consumer Relations



MTC-00033708

JAN-12-2002 05:32AM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONCORD,NH 03301-6328
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
 (603)271-3164
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
January 8, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    It is my understanding that your office is now accepting public 
comment in the case of U.S. v. Microsoft. I write in support of that 
agreement.
    This settlement is truIy an achievement by both parties and 
should be approved quickly, I do not work in the technology field, 
but have done substantial research on this issue and believe that 
this case has gone on far too

[[Page 30189]]

long In addition to spending too many taxpayer dollars, the 
government has unfairly persecuted this company end it should end, 
now, The frustration of Microsoft's competitors is understandable 
but misplaced. They have the opportunity to offer products that 
would compete with Microsoft's, but have not had the innovation to 
do so. The proposed settlement will allow Microsoft's competitors 
and customers more freedoms and it will help them become more 
profitable. Further restrictions or controls placed on Microsoft by 
the government will not be beneficial but instead will force America 
to take a backseat to other nations in the field of technology. 
Spending millions of additional dollars in these proceedings is no 
longer necessary or appropriate, This is a time of national crisis, 
and we need to be cognizant of the economy and public spending. it 
is now imperative that we put more resources into defense and 
national security rather than on needless litigation against an 
innovative company.
    Thank you for your time and consideration.
    Rogers Johnson
    State Representative



MTC-00033709

JAN-12-2002 05:32 AM
Jan 10-02 12:43a
Carlos Gonzalez
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Office of the Speaker
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse;
    I am writing this letter as a State Representative to express my 
support on behalf of a settlement that has been proposed in case of 
the United States v Microsoft. Finally an agreement has been reached 
in this case that has gone on for too long. It is an amazing 
achievement and I hope that you will award this by approving it as 
fast as possible. The federal government needs to focus its 
resources and time on more important matters facing our country not 
on litigating companies like Microsoft, etc. As a State 
Representative I work hard to make sure that the money the citizens 
taxpayers of New Hampshire give to State government is spent wisely 
and believe the same needs to be done nationally. It is my 
understanding Microsoft's competitors spurred this case. It has 
taken too long and it has gone too far spending taxpayer's dollars. 
However great their frustrations are when competing with the 
excellence of Microsoft's products, they should not be allowed to 
carry these legal proceedings on any longer.
    The time has come to end this case and the needless expending of 
millions of taxpayers dollars. It is not longer necessary or 
appropriate. In this time of economic uncertainty. We need to be 
looking for ways to spend government money (taxpayers'' 
dollars) more wisely,
    In conclusion, I am asking that you please approve this 
settlement between the United States v Microsoft. Thank you for your 
public service.
    Sincerely,
    Carlos Gonzalez
    State Representative
    Hillsborough County, District 48
    Manchester, NH 03102
    State House, Concord, New Hampshire 051101-4988, 
Telephone: (603) 271-5661, Fax: (803), 271-3809
    TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-736-8964



MTC-00033710

January 14, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW., Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to urge you to support the proposed settlement of 
the antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. While I believe that many 
of the allegations raised by the lawsuit against Microsoft may have 
merit, it is time to shift the focus of the Department of Justice 
and our tax dollars to other priorities.
    While the proposed settlement is not a home run for any of the 
interested parties, it does have a little bit of something in it for 
everybody while maintaining its overall balance. One way that you 
can tell that the settlement is balances is the fact that nobody is 
very happy with the proposed settlement.
    Please contact me if you have any questions, or if you would 
like more information.
    Thank you,
    Keep fighting them Phil Gashitt



MTC-00033711

8448 Short Ridge Road
Aurora, Indiana 47001
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As a Microsoft supporter, I write you concerning the recent 
settlement. After three years of negotiations, what more is there to 
debate? Microsoft has agreed to make various changes in licensing, 
marketing and design, and has agreed to do so under supervision. It 
is time to move forward and get our technology industry back to 
business.
    With our economy the way it is, it makes sense to support any 
advances in technology that will maintain our place in the global 
market. As the IT sector is forced to sit and wait for the 
settlement to be enforced, our economy is jeopardized by stagnant 
growth in the technology industry. As we spend our time and money of 
further litigation, others will be focusing on innovation.
    Let us help move forward and get back to business. Please help 
stop any further actions against this agreement. I thank you for 
your support.
    Sincerely,
    Myron Austin



MTC-00033712

27948 Blossom Boulevard
North Olmsted. Ohio 44070
January 8, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    The settlement that has been reached between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice must be approved. I feel that this agreement 
is long overdue. Microsoft and the rest of the technology industry 
make up one of the fastest growing, most profitable sectors of the 
U.S. economy, and this suit is detrimental to our economy. The 
bottom line is that Microsoft is one of America's largest employers, 
and given the current state of the economy, this settlement is 
critical.
    This suit should never have gotten as far as it has. Microsoft, 
in my opinion, was never guilty of antitrust violations. Microsoft's 
products are high quality, they arc reasonably m-iced. and they have 
withstood the test of time as the best products on the market. 
Without the Windows operating system we never would have had the 
boom that we have experienced in the IT field. Microsoft has made 
computers accessible to consumers, and I would hate to give up the 
benefits and ease that I now have with my Microsoft products because 
the government believes that they have become too successful.
    It is clear to me that this country needs to see the end of this 
suit before we can hope to recoup our financial losses. I support 
the settlement, and hope that it is approved as soon as possible.
    Sincerely
    Jim Pellegrino



MTC-00033713

JAN-09-2002 09:02
P.01
SUSAN V.BARBA
 P .0 Box 112
 Long Hill Road
New Vernon. New Jersey 07976-0112
January 7, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today to express my opinion in regards to the 
Microsoft settlement issue. I believe this settlement is long 
overdue and will be very beneficial to the present state of our 
economy.
    I feel that Microsoft has had a positive impact on the way we do 
business as a nation. Microsoft has contributed to the technology 
sector and has offered quality products to consumers at reasonable 
prices. I was displeased to see Microsoft punished for doing its job 
well. Now Microsoft will share information about the internal 
interfaces of Windows with its competitors and will be monitored by 
a full-time technical review committee.
    I believe the decision to settle with Microsoft was a good one. 
I hope to see the settlement benefit or IT sector soon
    Sincerely,
    Susan Barba
    TOTAL P.01



MTC-00033714

JAN 09 2002 9:1l WALTER SLACK
203-637-0389
Walter Slack

[[Page 30190]]

45 Cedar Cliff Road
Riverside, CT 06878
January 8, 2OO2
Attorney General John Ashcroft
The United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I am writing to express my displeasure with the involvement of 
state officials in the recent settlement between Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice. Although I am happy to see that this matter 
is being settled, the concessions are too harsh and unnecessary.
    I am also very upset that my state Attorney General (Michael 
Blumenthal) is involved with this matter. I thought that anti-trust 
was a Federal issue. My state Attorney General should be going after 
drug dealer and other such criminals that are a state issue that 
more directly affects my quality of life. His involvement in anti-
trust issues is just a redundancy of what the Federal Government is 
doing.
    Personally, I think that Mike Blumenthal just enjoys seeing his 
face on national TV. I request that no further litigation is pursued 
by the US DOJ and urge that local officials stay out of this 
settlement altogether. Thank you for your time; please lean on the 
last nine states and DC to settle, and I hope that what ultimately 
occurs will be in the best interests of the American pub tic and 
economy.
    Sincerely,
    Walter Slack



MTC-00033715

To: Attorney General
From: Biermann, Kevin
1-09-02 8:28am p.1 01 1
Communications Engineering Company, Inc.
1850 Boyson Road
Hiawatha, Iowa 52233
January 9, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    As Software Development Manager for a diversified company, I 
have learned to depend on the reliability of a variety of Microsoft 
software products. I am pleased that this settlement has been 
achieved and that apparently there will be no further federal action 
against Microsoft. For companies of our size and discipline, it is 
important to work with reliable software companies like Microsoft It 
would be very difficult for us, and many companies like ours, to 
work around any software changes that would have inevitably happened 
if this suit had continued through the federal courts.
    I wanted to write to suggest that this settlement is a good one, 
as Microsoft will appease its competitors by sharing key coding 
information and submitting to government oversight. I hope that it 
will be sustained through the review process. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Kevin Biermann
    Development Manager



MTC-00033717

January 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse, Esq.
Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW,
Washington, DC 20530
Fax l-202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse;
    I am a citizen of the United States. I work in the information 
technology industry. I believe that it would be disastrous for me 
should all the tools of my livelihood be owned by a single corporate 
entity, no matter how well intentioned. This Is what Microsoft 
intends. Their antitrust conviction indicates that Microsoft Is not 
well intentioned.
    I am profoundly concerned that, in the matter of US vs. 
Microsoft, the penalty phase of the trial is being managed by the 
convicted defendant In such ways as to increase their monopoly over 
today's information technology and, even more importantly, that of 
tomorrow.
    The far-reaching consequences of the de facto reversal of the 
anti-trust trial verdict would be difficult to overestimate. It is 
no exaggeration to say that this is a matter that will impact every 
life on this planet for many lifetimes to come.
    It is critically important that real, far-reaching and 
controlling penalties be assessed against Microsoft, Their very 
settlement proposal shows that the corporation's unbridled ambitions 
include actual control of every possible future application of 
information technology. The tendrlis of this plan reach deeply into 
matters of the defense of this country and its economic health, In 
ways so insidious that they can be nothing but another Microsoft 
plan for market dominance.
    This time, Microsoft is clearly thinking of the big picture. 
They are thinking of the entire nation and its governance. They are 
thinking of the entire global economy. They want it all. Their 
proposed settlement is another covert, gift-wrapped mechanism to 
achieve ambitious and self-serving ends.
    Microsoft is not sorry that it has performed monopolistically. 
They are ceaselessly, incurably, rapaciously ambitious. They have 
been found guilty; the punishment you help to assign must somehow 
enforce a curb upon their avarice and ability to infiltrate the 
fabric of our entire lives.
    Serious penalties are called for. Constant oversight is called 
for. The proposed settlement Includes neither of these elements.
    I could synthesize my own arguments for your consideration, but 
others, better informed and more knowledgeable, have already done 
so. I will quote them extensively, and hope you will consider the 
wisdom of their words.
    From Dennis E. Powell of LinuxPlanet:
    ``The ... proposed settlement ... would grant Microsoft its 
operating system monopoly-- indeed, contains wording such that 
it would no longer be illegal for Microsoft to maintain that 
monopoly--while saying that if Microsoft wants to, it can make 
it easier for people to write Windows applications, but it's by no 
means required to do so. In short, the settlement is a travesty, an 
ill-advised embarrassment that flings down and dances upon the law 
and upon all but the most twisted notion of justice,
    `I cannot see how the settlement that is proposed even 
pretends to remedy the antitrust violations for which Microsoft has 
been found culpable, The company has, I remind the judge, already 
been found in violation, and this is the penalty phase of the case, 
but the settlement contains no penalties and actually advances 
Microsoft's operating system monopoly. A just penalty ... 
would at barest minimum Include three additional features:
    Any remedy seeking to prevent an extension of Microsoft's 
monopoly must place Microsoft products as extra-cost options in the 
purchase of new computers, so that the user who does not wish to 
purchase them is not forced to do so. This means that for the price 
differential between a new computer with Microsoft software and one 
without, a computer seller must offer the software without the 
computer (which would prevent computer makers from saying that the 
difference in price is only a few dollars). Only then could 
competition come to exist in a meaningful way.
    o The specifications of Microsoft's present and future document 
file formats must be made public, so that documents created in 
Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on 
Microsoft's or other operating systems. This is in addition to 
opening the Windows application program interface (API, the set of 
``hooks'' that allow other parties to write applications 
for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the 
proposed settlement.
    o Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full 
and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would 
prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.
    I point out that If the national interest is at issue ... and as 
the judge has suggested it is crucial that Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly not be extended ... I quote the study released a 
year ago by the highly respected Center for Strategic and 
International Studies, which pointed out that the use of Microsoft 
software actually poses a national security risk. In closing, I say 
that all are surely in agreement that the resolution of this case Is 
of great importance, not just now but for many years to come. This 
suggests a careful and deliberate penalty is far more important to 
the health of the nation than is a hasty one.''
    ``A settlement more along the lines of the one I propose 
above would greatly benefit Windows users as well, because 
competition would force Microsoft to improve the quality of its 
products in areas including but not limited to reliability and 
security. The settlement before the judge would benefit only 
Microsoft; a sterner settlement would benefit everybody.
    I ask the judge to consider that the proposed settlement hurts 
each and every one of us in this nation in real, tangible ways. The 
proposed settlement should be rejected as ineffectual and, again, a 
tool of monopoly for Microsoft. Here are the words of a

[[Page 30191]]

California system administrator, with which I whole-heartedly agree:
    ``As the Network Administrator ... it is my responsibility 
oversee the deployment of new technologies to our company. My 
position gives me ample freedom to implement whatever software or 
hardware I see necessary to keep the company network running 
smoothly and to satisfy user requests. Unfortunately, though my 
position may give me that freedom, the current software economy 
cannot...
    I would dearly love to replace all Microsoft technology in my 
office with Open Source software, and if the software economy give 
me as much freedom as my job did, I would do just that. However, the 
most defeating problem is what Microsoft chooses to keep 
secret-- it's network protocols, the layout of its Office 
files, and the precise technology needed to migrate from their email 
server. . . . I am asking the court to force Microsoft to publish 
these protocols in detail.
    I am also urging to court to act on future technologies as well. 
Microsoft is now planning to add vast pieces of the Internet to its 
web of interdependencies. With its initiative .Net, whole portions 
of the web would be cut off from non-Mlcrosoft technologies. We have 
seen a glimpse of the monopolist's vision of the future with the UK 
and MSN portal, designed by Microsoft and accessible only with 
Microsoft technology.
    From a Canadian university (a nation whose economic fortunes are 
inextricably tied to those of the United States) comes a very 
specific analysis with which there can be no cogent argument, 
because It raises the Issue of the user's right to his or her own 
data: ``Because the most successful competitors in recent years 
in product markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto 
monopoly (e.g. personal computer operating systems, Internet 
browsers, and office productivity software) have arisen from the 
open source software community, I believe it is of extreme 
importance that any settlement protect and enhance this community's 
ability to produce products that provide end-users with viable 
choices.
    ``In my reading of the proposed settlement, such protection 
is not provided. On the contrary, the settlement will serve to allow 
Microsoft to continue to hinder the open source software community's 
efforts.
    ``The proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of APIs and 
licensing of intellectual property, I fear that any information 
disclosed by Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or 
developers under conditions of a non-disclosure agreement, thus 
preventing the implementation of such protocols in an open source 
project or product, ``This settlement, if Implemented as 
proposed, will serve to entrench Microsoft's monopolies further, by 
allowing it to exclude the open source software community from any 
future technologies and APIs it develops. As this community is 
currently one of Microsoft's most serious competitors, it seems 
unbelievable that the proposed settlement will aid Microsoft in 
eliminating this `threat'' to their monopolies.
    ``As an example of the current `problem'' of 
Microsoft's monopoly in the OS and office productivity 
software markets, I point to the ublquitous `.doc'' file. 
This one proprietary file format I believe Is one of the 
cornerstones of Microsoft's OS/productivity suite monopoly. 
Many people I know in the academic and business communities 
regularly purchase updated versions of Microsoft Windows and 
Microsoft Office for the sole reason that their correspondents send 
them .doc files as e-mail attachments. The options for importing 
these files into 3rd party applications are many; however, having 
personally tried a large number of such programs, both free and 
commercial, I can safely say that many work well some of the time, 
none work well all of the time. The continuing cycle of forced 
upgrades to maintain compatibility with correspondents lies at the 
heart of Microsoft's monopoly.
    ``As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that 
Microsoft should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the 
file formats used by Its products to anyone who sends or receives 
files In such formats and requests the information. ``Left 
unsolved, this problem is bound to be more severe In the future. It 
has been widely reported recently that Microsoft is considering 
moving to a yearly licensing-fee system for its OS and offlce 
software. In this case, files created with licensed software and 
saved in proprietary formats may be permanently unavailable to the 
creator or owner of the data in the file if a user or company 
chooses to terminate its license. I may own the copyright of the 
work I create, but that Is of little value if the only copy of the 
work in existence is one saved in a format to which I do not have 
access. ``Of course the .doc file format Is not the only 
proprietary file format Microsoft products use, and the arguments 
above apply equally well to other products and file formats. The 
.doc format Is likely the most important however, because text-based 
documents appear to be the most commonly shared and transmitted.
    ``A second cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly is the fact 
that many computer manufacturers will not sell computer hardware 
without a Microsoft OS. I understand that the proposed settlement 
will prevent Microsoft from entering into exclusive arrangements 
with vendors, but I believe that stronger protections are required.
    ``If Microsoft's agreements with computer vendors forced 
the vendor to disclose to the computer purchaser the price of the 
Microsoft products Included, It would help consumers choose products 
and vendors that were appropriate to their needs. As an example, I 
point to Dell which will, as far as I can tell, not sell a computer 
without a Microsoft OS and office productivity suite. If purchasers 
knew that without these products they could save some number of 
dollars, that now often amounts to a sizable percentage of the 
computer package purchase price, they could apply pressure to the 
vendor to provide alternative (likely less expensive) products. 
Microsoft has stated concerns that selling computers without 
operating systems equates to software piracy. This assertion is 
absurd, and has become Irrelevant with Microsoft's newest release of 
Windows XP, which requires license activation.
    ``Having consumers and end-users with more information Is 
clearly in the public interest. All of what is suggested here 
concerns supplying information that enables computer users to make 
informed decisions, and to access their own work on their own 
computer, ``In summary, I believe the proposed settlement is 
seriously lacking, and will, if implemented as proposed, aid 
Microsoft in its efforts to hinder Its most viable competitors. Any 
successful settlement must protect the rights of computer users to 
choose the products they desire to access their data.''
    If much of the legal profession is about finding loopholes (it 
is), then accountancy is about closing them. So it's not surprising 
that a certified public accountant found a glaring and terrible 
loophole in the proposed settlement and argued that it should be 
eliminated: ``Another issue I have with the proposed settlement 
is the restrictions that are placed on the entities with which 
Microsoft must share their API's In the explanations I have seen of 
the proposed settlement these entitles are restricted to 
`commercial'' ventures, implying for-profit status, This 
is simply wrong and way too restrictive. I believe that to be truly 
effective the parties with whom Microsoft should share their 
API's and the like should be broadly defined, maybe something 
like `any party or entity that could potentially benefit from 
such information'. In other words this information should 
essentially be in the public domain.''
    Many of us are simply and plainly harmed by Microsoft's business 
practices. From Microsoft's own back yard, Seattle, a commentator 
considers the specifics of the proposed settlement. She provides a 
compelling illustration of how she Is personally damaged by the M 
microsoft monopoly:
    ``Microsoft has been determined guilty of violating anti-
trust laws and the penalty phase just seems to miss the mark. I am 
hearing comments on the street that the U.S. Government is now a 
wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft. I will admit that I find the 
`penalties'' somewhat perplexing in that they certainly 
seem to miss the mark rather completely.
    ``I personally think that is probably a little radical, but 
then I see demo copies of Microsoft's XP operating system on 
all the workbenches of my local post offices and I do wonder what is 
going on here. I do not see any other vendors'' product demos 
available there. (Doesn't) this seem to Indicate implicit approval 
of Microsoft products and no other by a government entity?
    ``The following are the flaws that I see in the 
`penalties'' that essentially seem to leave Microsoft 
better off than they were before the trial, there is no separation 
of Integrated software that harms and stifles competition to the 
Microsoft operating system. Further I see no provisions for computer 
manufacturers to be able to offer other and more viable operating 
systems in a fair and price competitive atmosphere--essentially 
nothing has changed (under the terms of the proposed settlement).
    ``I do not see that the proprietary protocols for the 
operating system, networking and other elements are to be made 
public in order

[[Page 30192]]

that others may have equal opportunity to develop applications In a 
spirit of healthy competition and to encourage innovation, Microsoft 
appears to be allowed to maintain the closed, proprietary and 
monopolistic systems that started this process. Again It appears 
that nothing has changed and it will be business as usual for 
Microsoft.
    ``In Washington State, Microsoft continues with its 
obnoxious and heavy handed practices, only now In a new area. Their 
handling of their Internet Service Provider (ISP) business seems to 
be following the same basic marketing strategy that they used with 
their operating systems. This has even been noted In the Seattle 
Times newspaper, In a city where normally Microsoft can do no wrong: 
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm1/localnews/l34378212 
awestl4mO.html
    ``Again, it appears to be business as usual for Microsoft.
    ``Thus I am perplexed at the current 
``penalties'' being `imposed'' on Microsoft. 
They seem to be more of an encouragement for Microsoft to continue 
In the same ways it has been and those are the very same ones that 
brought this issue to the DO] In the first place. If these are 
Implemented as currently stated, then fair business practices, 
innovation and competition are DEAD in the computer field.
    ``I do use Microsoft products; a very few are reasonably 
decent but I am forced to use others because the only option I have 
for them is other Microsoft products. Because of this, my time is 
considerably less efficiently used in repairing and working to keep 
the systems going rather than accomplishing work that I need to do. 
If one does not expect much from the computers running Microsoft 
products then they are not the absolute worst products on the 
planet, If you expect much from them and / or use them heavily then 
you are going to
    rather constantly ... have them fail (with resulting) loss of 
time, effort and money. On days when I am working hard it is common 
to have to reboot my machine to recover my working ability at least 
several times. As time goes on from the initial (or subsequent 
complete re-install of the operating system) the situation grows 
steadily worse. The overall cost of running Microsoft products Is 
Incredibly high and far higher than it ever should be were Microsoft 
concerned with more than creating a market for the next version of 
Its products. Bluntly, quality is not job one,
    ``In order that Microsoft be brought into line and with any 
hope of curbing their horrid business practices, it will take REAL 
penalties and serious oversight. With the obscene amounts of money 
that Microsoft has managed to accumulate through its less-than-fair 
business practices ... there is some doubt as to whether that can 
actually be accomplished. It has become quite obvious to anyone 
working In the field that there is no honor or integrity in 
Microsoft, only the search for more money in complete disregard for 
the good of the industry, the users ... at this point In time it 
becomes rather blatantly obvious that national security is at risk 
due to the poor quality and serious lack of attention to security 
that is (an) epidemic In their products. That alternatives are few 
is a direct result of the issues that DO] is supposed to be 
addressing in this matter.
    ``I've been told that I am wasting my time here, in 
that Microsoft can pay people to submit positive comments for this 
business enhancing solution that has been proposed as a 
`punishment'. They have done the same things in the 
past; that is pretty much common knowledge. I can only hope that DO] 
will prove wise, not be bought out by Microsoft and free the 
Industry for the good of the consumer and the country,''
    A computer professional who has a long list of 
certifications--including some from Microsoft -- makes the 
point that competition is the only assurance of high quality:
    ``Microsoft products, by virtue of being (created by) a 
monopoly, have been designed without concern for security or 
reliability, I can prove that the design of Microsoft products leads 
to the spread of countless virii in the computer industry. They 
(Microsoft products) are the perfect products to use to send 
damaging virus from many groups like the terrorists from 
Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt.... And do not imagine that 
these places have not already done damage.
    ``And it is not only because Microsoft products are in such 
wide use, but the real problem is that the products have been very 
poorly designed. It seems Microsoft has enough money to do the job 
right, so the remaining reasons why the products are so poorly 
written is that there is currently no need to be `best of 
breed'' when you are the only option.
    'It will not be long till they (the terrorists) discover 
that they can inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. All 
this because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly, and instead of 
actually writing well-designed programs, they spend all the energy 
they have to simply maintain that monopoly,
    ``Often I give speeches to Information technology groups 
that state, `Without Microsoft in the industry, we would be at 
least 10 years ahead of where we are today'. But because of 
the constrictive designs and monopollzing practices of Microsoft, no 
possible competitive products have been able to get a start,
    ``As just one example: IBM wrote a fine operating system 
called OS/2 in 1992. Only today, some 9 years later, Is Windows XP 
beginning to catch up to the technical capabllity of OS/2. In fact 
It still has a long way to go to catch up to OS/2 in security and 
reliability. What happened? IBM could not get any hardware vendors 
to carry the software because Microsoft had tied up all 
manufacturers of computers to Include with each and every computer, 
a copy of Windows. This in spite of the fact that many wanted to use 
OS/2 instead of Windows. What happened to anyone who decided to use 
OS/2 was (that) they also paid (for) and received a copy of Windows 
that they did not desire.
    ``The only way to get the marketplace back in order is to 
separate the computer hardware from the operating system. When you 
go to a store to buy a computer, you should be able to buy any 
computer available without having to also purchase an operating 
system, That choice should be made at the time of purchase rather 
than (be forced through software) included in the cost of the 
computer.
    ``(This situation) is much akin to buying a car, and with 
that car purchase also comes a coupon for gasoline from the 
Microsoft Gasoline Company. We agree that the car uses gasoline, and 
we all buy gasoline, but what If we prefer to buy gasoline from 
Shell rather than prepay for gasoline from the Microsoft Gasoline 
Company? Should we not have the option of not prepaying for fuel 
from the Microsoft Gas Company? ...''
    From Rick Hohensee of the cLIeNUX distribution comes a 
substitute remedy proposal:
    ``(It would be best if) the Court declares Microsoft 
operating system products `criminally compromised intellectual 
property'. This is a special state of copyright protection 
vacancy, under which Microsoft operating system products lose their 
patent and copyright protections exactly five years after their 
release dates....
    ``First off, it has (the) one essential characteristic of 
anything that will be effective upon Microsoft, simplicity. They 
feed on loopholes. There are none in the above. There's nothing they 
can do about the Fed not protecting the copyrights their existence 
depends upon.
    ``There is nothing for them to cooperate with.
    ``This doesn't require any cooperation or good faith from 
Microsoft, which is also crucial, (They may actually favor this 
remedy, however.) ...
    ``It does actually partially break their monopoly, The AOLs 
and Oracles and Rick Hohensees of the world can produce their own 
alternatives to Windows, based on older versions of Windows. (I 
personally have to be very well paid to look at a Windows desktop, 
but distastes vary. I use Linux.)
    ``The focus is on the software others are dependent on, 
(the) operating systems. This leaves Microsoft untouched as to 
application products such as Offtce.... ``What goes in an OS, 
where they expend their energies, all product design decisions and 
so on remain with Microsoft. Federal micromanagement of Microsoft is 
avoided, to everyone's benefit....
    Another correspondent, from England, makes comments that must be 
seen In the Federal Register. They neatly address further Microsoft 
plans to manage national and world trade through monopolistic 
practices Identical to those for which Microsoft was convicted.
    ``MS Is desperate to stop Linux from competing in the 
client /server market by enforcing an MS client/MS server strategy. 
An example of this is the recent non-standard extensions to Kerberos 
so that if companies have MS clients they will find the encryption 
protocols may only work properly when they're talking to MS servers, 
This is to be expected from the company that continuously muddied 
the waters on SMB.
    ``.NET Is really an extension of the same principle, though 
the spinmeisters at Redmond make sickening paeans to Open Standards 
with their `XML Foundations'' nonsense.
    ``Let me give you an example of Microsoft's 
commitment to XML as an open standard for

[[Page 30193]]

data exchange--taken from the December 2001 issue of Linux User 
in an interview wlth OperaSoft's Haakon Lie:
    ``MS office claims to support XML but it writes the XML 
tags inside HTML comments so that they can not be found (by non-MS 
software). Even if the software then knew how to find the XML tags 
it would not know how to interpret them as the format used for the 
tags is proprietary!
    ``I think this tells you all you need to know about 
Microsoft's conversion to XML.
    ``What about those of us who do not live in the US? 
Microsoft's policies affect the entire world--how do the rest 
of us try and have a say in this? I speak as someone who lives in a 
country whose government has decided to hive off the public sector 
IT infrastructure lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft, and whose 
leader, Tony Blair, goes weak-kneed in the presence of Bill Gates. 
Britain is about to become the first reference site in the world for 
.Net, if Gates gets approval from the government to roll out a 
multi-billion dollar 100% MS solution for the tax authorities. In 
the last month it has been announced that the National Health 
Service and the Mlnlstry of Defence have signed deals to put *all* 
of their desktops under one MS licensing contract. In three years 
time, if they want to carry on using the software, they will have to 
pay whatever amount MS demands (the joys of software rental). The 
lion's share of government contracts (in pound sterling terms) have 
gone to EDS, a company which makes no secret of the fact that it is 
little more than a value added reseller for Microsoft (all of EDS's 
costly `solutions'' are 100% MS).''
    Please consider that the U.S. government has made much of 
globalization. It is a good idea for the government to understand 
that in cases such as this one, which have a global impact, this 
means responsibility for corporate behavior wlthln the boundaries of 
the United States. Additionally, parties injured by the actions of 
American companies, which actions took place In the U.S., have 
standing by every standard I can find.
    Finally, I will quote another wise man, a Florldlan with more 
intensive software industry experience than mine, who speaks to the 
point of freedom of choice for the consumer: ``I am a Software 
Developer who has worked In the industry for almost 10 years. I have 
used many Microsoft products, and have enjoyed the increasing 
ablllties of software systems developed by Mlcrosoft. I also enjoy 
using other operating systems, but as a software developer, I have 
to follow market trends to keep myself fed--regardless of the 
market trends.
    ``However, it is apparent to any casual software user that 
Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Web 
Browser market. It is more apparent to a software developer who 
works within Microsoft operatlng systems. The technical aspects 
involved in the operatlng system itself (speclflcally, development 
with the Microsoft Foundation Classes and use of `.Net'' 
technology) marries the software developer (happily or unhappily so) 
to Internet Explorer, and the operating system. ``Furthermore, 
speclflc training programs such as MCSE (Mlcrosoft Certified 
Software Englneer) and MCSD (Microsoft Certlfled Solution Developer) 
are geared towards maintaining the Internet Browser market by way of 
gearing Mlcrosoft Cettifled individuals (who pay for courses and 
tests!) to use only Microsoft Products.
    ``Operating Systems.
    ``Software.
    ``Software Development.
    ``In an Internet enabled world, these are the tools for 
maintaining a monopoly on the Internet Browser Market.
    ``One could argue that nobody else has attempted these 
things on the level that Microsoft Inc. has, Yet that is my point. 
Nobody should. Freedom of Choice.
    ``The newer versions of Windows have the Internet 
technologies wrapped in them. This IS an obvious attempt to matntain 
a monopoly on the Internet Browser market. They may be able to prove 
that they did not do it `on purpose', but they have done 
it. If I run over a man wlth my car, and I broke a traffic law while 
doing so, the offense is manslaughter. It I planned to do it 
(premedltated), it's Murder 1. The fact remains that a man would be 
dead.
    ``Odds are that when this is read, It will be read on a 
Windows NT 4.0 machine. Why? Because the U.S. Government has 
certified Windows NT 4.0 as a secure operating system, Furthermore, 
this mail message will probably be read through another one of 
Microsoft's applications.
    ``The US. Government, for lack of any other 
`secure'' operating system, has gone with the highest 
bidder. Nell Armstrong quipped about going to the moon on everything 
built by the lowest bidder, and here the United States states that 
we'll go with the ONLY software manufacturer that creates an 
operating system. This seems counterintultive. Freedom of Choice. If 
you need more proof than the software that the reader of this 
document Is using, and my ability to predict that, I'm at a loss.
    ``These two polnts highlight the fact that the average 
American consumer is paying more than once for the same 
software--flrst as consumers, then as taxpayers. When banks 
charge twice for ATM withdrawals, we cringe and say that it may be 
legal, but it Is obviously immoral. Given, the hardware manufacturer 
Is hiding the price of the operating system on new computer systems, 
the fact remains the same.
    ``This is a sticky situation, but legal recourse In the 
interest of the people of the United States (and the rest of the 
world!) should contain the following items:
    ``(1) Microsoft products--or products of any software 
manufacturer--must be sold as separate items by computer 
vendors. Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice. Other software 
manufacturers then also have a chance to compete. Installation of 
the USER SELECTED software can remain free.
    ``(2) Any Microsoft networklng protocols must be publlshed 
in full and approved by an independent network protocol body. This 
would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the 
Internet.
    ``(3) The speclflcations of Microsoft's past, present and 
future document and network formats must be made public, so that 
documents created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs 
from other makers, on Microsoft's AND other operating systems. Thls 
is in addltion to opening the Wlndows Application Program Interface 
(`Windows API', the set of ``hooks'' that 
allow other parties to write applications for Windows operating 
systems), which is already part of the proposed settlement.
    ``(4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software 
Engineering Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well 
as insight into their development process for Operating Systems. SE1 
level 3 is required by the United States Government for software 
companies that supply software to it (or that was coming in 1999). 
This certification was created to protect the government from 
software manufacturers that had no software development process. 
This same certification should protect the average consumer, AND 
insight into the Software Development Process for creation of their 
operating systems would glve software manufacturers a chance to keep 
up with Microsoft,
    ``(5) Device Driver information for new operating systems 
MUST be made public prior to the release of the operating system by 
a minimum of 6 months. This Is VERY important when dealing with 
future web enabled embedded devices. This is also very important to 
the average consumer--they get a better product!
    ``This judgment is not only of Import to the United States, 
where It is a national issue. It is in fact an INTERNATIONAL issue, 
since the monopoly itself extends to ali corners of the world, 
Judgment In this case MUST be fair to the consumer, because future 
cases along these lines will look toward this precedent. And, in 
future, it may not be as domestic an Issue. ``Furthermore, if 
Microsoft Inc. were a foreign company, this would be seen as a 
security issue. It should be seen this way despite the fact that 
Microsoft is a domestic software manufacturer, (and) for the SAME 
reasons.
    ``Please realize that the implications In an Internet based 
society reach further than the next few years, They affect society 
ad inflnitum.''
    Please do not allow this travesty of a negotiated settlement to 
warp this nation's future.
    Please do not allow the tools of production to remain in a 
single palr of grasping corporate hands.
    Thank you for your consideration. Please help the judge to make 
careful and considered choices. The task before you now Is to rein 
In this corporate megalith and constrain its future behavior into 
conformity with the letter and spirit of the law. The richest must 
not be allowed to legislate for all of us, with no end other than 
their further enrichment,
    That isn't justice.
    Thomas M, Barclay
    01/09/02



MTC-00033718

Janice M. Yahr, CPA
3505 Veterans Memorial Highway
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779-7613
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft

[[Page 30194]]

US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am a concerned citizen writing you regarding the recent 
Microsoft settlement. After three years of delays in this well 
thought out, and well monitored negotiation process, it seems 
ridiculous to hold up these terms any longer. The terms should now 
speak for themselves, and be allowed to pull together the IT sector 
to function as a team.
    Not only has Microsoft agreed to rework licensing and marketing 
agreements, but also has agreed to design future versions of Windows 
to allow for easier installation of non-Microsoft software. They 
have also agreed to make these changes while being monitored by a 
committee to make sure that they follow procedure. With all of the 
concessions made by Microsoft, it is evident that they were acting 
in the best interest of the IT sector as a whole. This is one of the 
prime reasons why we should be supporting our technology industry by 
supporting this settlement.
    Moving forward with this settlement can only be helpful to 
consumers, the technology industry, and our economy as a whole. Let 
us help support our economy at this time and stop any further action 
against this settlement. I thank you for your support.
    Sincerely,
    Janice M. Yahr



MTC-00033719

Jacques Germans
67--59 214 Street
Bayside, NY 11364
718 224 8477 o fax: 503 210 1575 o e-mail 
[email protected]
January 11, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing in support of the Microsoft antitrust settlement. I 
do not believe protracted litigation, or the imposition of 
punishment beyond the terms of the agreement, such as breaking up 
the Microsoft Corporation, will serve the best interests of anyone.
    As a computer consultant. I believe open competition is 
beneficial to consumers, and to our economy as a whole. Microsoft 
has been a fierce competitor in the market place, and has prospered 
as a result. This has been good for consumers. However, if Microsoft 
violated any antitrust lams in their business practices, that 
behavior should be rectified. So long as the settlement agreement 
provisions rectify any actions that violate the laws, the settlement 
agreement should be approved, and the litigation should end. I 
believe the settlement agreement contains such provisions. 
Specifically, the creation of a three person technical committee to 
monitor Microsoft's business practices, and Microsoft's agreement to 
share internal operating information with its competitors, will go 
far in ensuring compliance with antitrust laws.
    I urge you to support the settlement agreement. In these trying 
economic times? it is important for Microsoft. and the computer 
industry as a whole, be free to focus on business, rather than 
lawsuits.
    Sincerely,



MTC-00033720

Konard 0. Hauffe, DDS
Post office Box 543
717 Main Avenue
Brookings, SD 57104
605-692-4715 Ofnce/605-692-2427 Fax
January 2,2002
Renata Hesse-bsTrial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata Hesse:
    For the past couple years, I have been very concerned that the 
anti-trust suit against Microsoft Corporation will slow down the 
progress Windows has brought to home users and businesses.
    I have a dental practice in eastern South Dakota and I look 
forward to the development of a Windows based system in the near 
future to replace the DOS program my office has used. However, I 
believe if the government continues this case against Microsoft, it 
will retard the kinds of innovations which would benefit clients 
like me and others. I also believe that it would be harmful to 
creativity if this case results in government playing a role which 
slows down progress and makes companies less apt to develop new 
products and market them. I think the government should avoid 
micromanaging companies in the information technologies industry.
    Beyond the government intrusion issue, what is disconcerting in 
this court action is the fact that Microsoft's actions have not been 
found to be ham&l to consumers. I realize there are additional 
issues in this case, but it is also my understanding that those 
issues have been addressed in the settlement awement.
    I am sending this Ietter in the public comment phase of this 
process to let you know that I support the settlement agreement and 
wish to see an end to this case. I also applaud the settlement's 
provisions which will bring new technologies to schools where 
poverty has prevented children from competing educationally.
    Thank you for your attention to my concerns.
    Sincerely,
    Dr, Konarcd 0. Hauffe



MTC-00033721

Mark Magnuson
27185 Pine Circle
Harrisburg, South Dakota 67032
December 3 1,200l
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
United States Department of Justice
601 D Street NW--Suite 1200
Washington, DC. 20530
    Dear Rcnata Hesse:
    I was extremely pleased at the initial news of a settlement 
between the US. Justice Department and the Microsoft Corporation 
over the anti-trust suit brought by the Justice Department and 
various states'' attorneys generaI. However, I became concerned 
when I heard that halfof the states in the suit want to keep up the 
fight in the courts, and that it was also clear that they were being 
cheered on my Microsoft's competitors, I hope that common sense and 
fairness will prevail and that this four-year-old, very expensive 
suit will be ahowed to finally settle. I support the settlement. As 
a businessman in southeastern South Dakota, I know that business 
ru.tis'on Microsoft's Windows programs. Because the company has 
produced versa$)e, uncomplicated and affordable software that offers 
the best innovations, large and 4mall businesses have been enabled 
to compete with access to the information highway. It certainly has 
enabled entrepreneurs to enter the business world at the 
sa.rne``technica.l level of older firms, and that has been a 
major cornerstone for our state's economy.
    From news stories, I have learned that the proposed settlement 
uses a means test to have Microsoft outfit the most economically 
needy schools and students with the tools they need to use the 
internet, The intemct is the great equalizer in this age, and it is 
essential as learning to read and perform math to the success of 
each student. The settlement also resolves the issues which the 
courts decided needed to be resolved. I can't think what positive 
purpose can be served if Microsoft's antagonists are allowed to kill 
this settlement and drag this issue along for another year or two, 
because it is doubtful the continuation of this case will produce 
new findings of my substance.
    As one who uses Windows in my work and at home, I am a satisfied 
customer+ and I don't know any business people in the Sioux Falls 
region who have a beef with the quality of the software supplied by 
Microsoft. Spending more time and taxes on this case, I believe, 
would truly be a waste. Please aIlow this settlement to stand.
    Thank you.
    Mark Magnuson



MTC-00033722

Georgia Hanson
551 N. Mable Avenue--Sioux Falls, SD 57103
December 31, 2001
Ranata Heese, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 2053C
    Dear Renata:
    Ths recently achieved settlement on U.S. vs. Microsoft will 
bring a wonderful opportunity to bridge the digital divide which 
exists for children in several counties of my state. I want you to 
know that South Dakota has had three of the nation's most 
impoverished counties, according to the Census Bureau, which are 
located on Indian Reservations. However, poverty in South Dakota is 
found in non-Indian counties where children live in farms, ranches 
and rural communities. Thanks to this settlement, these children 
won't have to stand last in line for this fundamentally important 
educational tool.
    As a consultant and businesswoman, I am pleased that this 
settlement offers the hope that Microsoft will be able to continue 
its good work for new software innovations.

[[Page 30195]]

However, the most important benefit for our nation's economy rests 
with the conclusion of a court case which has certainly run its 
course. I was very pleased that the federal government and half of 
the states involved in the case reached a settlement in an anti-
trust case where no harm to consumers was established. I am also 
very concerned about the effect on our economy and on the stability 
of the information technologies sector of our economy if this 
settlement is abandoned. Further compromises and penalties would 
have a chilling effect on any company's ability to become as 
innovative and productively assertive as Microsoft has been in its 
drive to be the most successful software developer in the world.
    It is clear that the critical issues in the case have been 
resolved. I hope for the sake of this important industry that the 
last word has been said and that conusumers will continue to benefit 
from more innovations and advancements in technology.
    Sincerely,
    Georgia Hansen



MTC-00033723

Rick Bauermeister, Director of Business Development
Market Solutions Group, Inc.
300 N. Dakota Avenue, Sioux Falls, DD 57184
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    I am very pleased to submit my letter of support for the 
settlement under consideration in the U.S v. Microsoft anti-trust 
case. I have foIloved this issue through the news media, and I 
believe the settlcment is fair and completely resolves the issues 
which were upheld by the courts.
    Additionally, I am very, very pleased to see this case resolved 
after all of the time and financial resources which were invested 
thus far. It would be extremely unfortunate if this issue were to 
allow to linger and devour more time and money, nor to mention the 
damage done to the Microsoft Corporation to continue defending 
itself and disrupting its services as the world's leader in the 
development and sales of affordable, easy-to-use software. The stock 
market reports show thut while many sectors in economy have been 
sagging from the economic recession, Microsoft has shown remarkable 
resiliency.
    As a businessman whose livelihood has depended on advances in 
information technology, I've paid attention to how the dynamic 
advances created by Microsoft has not only vastly improved office 
system functions, but also how these advances have become more and 
more accessible and affordable to consumers. I think that consumers 
and our nation's economy have been the ultimate winner in 
Microsoft's quest to provide the best possible technological support 
to computer users.
    The settlecment which is being considered is a huge benefit for 
underprivileged children and school systems. But it is also the best 
solution for our nation's economy, consumers, and the entire 
information technology industry. I strongly recommend that this 
settlement is allowed to be enacted and that this controversy is 
finished once and for all. I thank you very much for your attention 
to my letter.
    With best regards,
    Rick Bauermeister



MTC-00033724

January 2, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse
    Thank you for this opportunity to offer my views on the proposed 
settlement on the anti-trust case, U.S. VS. Microsoft Corporation. I 
am In full support of the settlement for these reasons:
    o The settlement, when enacted, will put an end to a court 
action which has dragged along for four years and has cost our 
federal government a great deal of money.
    o The benefits from the settlement will be highly fruitful for 
children, in our nation who most need access to information 
technologies, but who have been shut out because of economic 
circumstances.
    o The conclusion of this case will stop dragging down Microsoft 
Corporation's resources and attention from the excellent job it has 
done to provide the highly usable and affordable software systems in 
the homes and offices of Americans.
    + The Conclusion of this case will also end the threat of 
bringing down a corporation that has proven itself as being 
essentlal to the overall strength of America's economy.
    Microsoft has been a very supportive partner In the development 
of Information technologies in my home state of South Dakota. It 
submltted a S760,OOO matching grant to glve a significant boost to 
the state government's effort to make the Internet ubiquitous to 
South Dakotans, and to increase opportunities for our state economy.
    Personally, I have frequently wondered why thls antl-trust case 
was Initiated, because the case has not succeeded In proving that 
Microsoft Corporation has adversely affected consumers, I thlnk the 
settlement Is very, very generous, and that if there were Issues 
which needed to be decided in this court process, they are now 
resolved.
    Please do what you can to expedite this process and bring a fair 
conclusion to this case by allowing the settlement to be enacted.
    sincerely,
    Edward T. Clark, M.D.
    4708 S. Wlldwood Circle
    Sioux Falls, SD 57105



MTC-00033725

Paul McSweeney
Dakota Networks, Inc.
Phone: 605-331-6973 Fax: 605-332-8722
E-mail: paulmac@dakdta-networkscorn
December 29, 2001
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Dept. Of Justice
601 D Street NW / Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Renata:
    My letter is intended to provide commentary to voice my support 
for the proposed settlement in U.S. vs. Microsoft. My firm supplies 
software and IT support systems to many clients throughout the 
nation. As one who works with clients to set up office systems, I am 
very concerned about the net effect to the entire IT industry if 
this settlement is not enacted and the case is allowed to continue a 
course to more severe penalties and regulations on the development 
of new technologies.
    The settlement reached by the Justice Department and nine of the 
states involved in the case probably does not make anyone entirely 
happy, but it includes something for everyone. Best of all, however, 
is the settlement will bring children and schools in economically 
stressed areas of our nation into the world of the internet. It also 
addresses the issues which the court process decided were the 
essential issues to be resolved.
    I have relocated from Massachusetts to South Dakota. census 
records have shown consistently that South Dakota is home to the 
three pooreet counties in the United States. They are located on 
Indian reservations. While the state has done much to wire public 
schools for the internet and to prepare children for the information 
age, I believe the settlement will provide a huge leap forward for 
Indian children through the gifts of software and hardware involved 
in the settlement. I appreciate your attention to my letter. I hope 
this settlement ia enacted so that the IT industry can move forward.
    Sincerely,
    Paul McSweenney



MTC-00033726

MARY ELIZABETH JONES, ED.D.
48043 Snowbird Circle
Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57lO8
605-3674293 Office--6050743-2771 Residence
December 26,200l
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Anti-Trust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Trial Attorney Hesse:
    I appreciate the opportunity to state my support for the 
sottloment agreement in U.S. v. Microsoft because of the tremendous 
benefit it offers to dislldvantaged children through their education 
system, and because it finally brings to rest a court action which 
has absorbed enough time and resources firom our government and from 
a corporation which is vital to our nation's troubled economy. I 
have workod for many years in South Dakota as a mental therapist and 
in education, and I agree with the view that this settlement will 
repair what is known as ```the digital divide'' 
which exists among economic classes in our society, and it seeks to 
remedy the issues which have been found to be valid thus far in the 
court process.
    It is my understanding that the purpose of anti-trust laws and 
processes is to protect consumers. However, I think it needs to be 
clearly underscored in the consideration of

[[Page 30196]]

this settlement that none of the Microsoft Corporation's 
actions have been found to havo harmed American consumers. Frankly, 
it appears to many of us that those who wish to jettison this 
valuable settlement and continue pursuing an even more severe 
victory are actually seeking to tear down
    Microsoft's earned place as a leader in the information 
technologies industry. If such a severe victory is achieved, I 
believe the damage in the long-term will be against the entire 
information technologies industry and to the American economy. 
Microsoft Corporation is an important part of America's economic 
muscle and it is obvious to the casual observer that its marketplace 
competitors are working diligently to weaken the industry leader 
with tho hope that a short-term gain will result. I think it is 
worth noting that while there are nine states which seek to prolong 
this issue beyond its four-year run in the process, nine other 
states and the U.S. Department of Justice have decided this issue 
should be settled now. It would be best for this nation's economy 
and the industry to settle this issue with this fair settlement and 
move ahead.
    Thank you very much for considering my thoughts on this 
important matter.
    Sincerely,
    Mary Jones



MTC-00033727

THE MAIN STREET PUB JBHICA RADSAN
11 W. Main, Vermillion, SD 57069
Phone: 6054BU-5261
December 31, 2001
Trial Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW \ Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Trial Attorney Hesse:
    My letter for the public commentary phase of the U.S. v. 
Microsoft antitrust case seeks to demonstrate my support in favor of 
the settlement agreement which was reached between Microsoft 
Corporation and the United States Justice Deparmsnt.
    I gladly applaud the Justice Department for reaching this 
agreement because the settlement will bring to an end a protracted 
and expensive case which has resolved the issues which the court has 
upheld as valid concerns.
    I think the merits of the settlement agreement and the 
conclusions reached therein can be beneficial to the future of 
software development in our nation. On the other hand, I am very 
wary of efforts by some interests to undermine this fair and just 
settlement and the motivations behind those efforts.
    What is most noteworthy to me is that this case did not find 
that Microsoft had harmed consumers. This, fact should give pause to 
those who wish to continue spending resources to continue this case 
beyond what is reasonable.
    As a businesswoman, I am pleased with the high value and 
affordable cost of Microsoft's products. I believe the corporation 
has done much to make information technologies handily available and 
affordable to millions of Americans. As one of the most succeesful 
corporations in America, Microsoft ia a pillar in America's economy 
and it has been a reliable partner in business development.
    Anyone can see that the information technologies industry is a 
highly competitive industry, and that Microsoft's position as the 
leader has been fought against some very tough opposition. This 
competition keeps Microsoft on its toes to out-create its 
competitors, and I believe Microsoft'a meet productive and 
innovative days are yet to come as long as this case does not result 
in over-regulation and penalties which will give competitors an 
unearned advantage.
    I have faith in our justice system that this settlement 
agreement will be allowed to proceed and its provisions, will be 
helpful-to consumers. Thank you for reviewing my words of 
encouragement to put this agreement to work for a more Secure 
industry and economy.
    Very truly yours,
    Jessica R. Radigan



MTC-00033729

From John & Edie Reynolds to 787-5765
Edie P. Reynolds
3709 Marlin Ct.
Raleigh. NC 27604
January 18, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    It is my belief that approving the settlement of the Microsoft 
case now will benefit the United States tremendously. It's time to 
get the economy moving again, and settling this suit will provide 
the perfect shot in the arm for the ailing American economy. The 
date of the beginning of the stock market's collapse can be traced 
to the frederal government's decision to break up Microsoft, 
according the Rush Limbaugh radio show last Tuesday, January 15, 
2001. Investor confidence was destroyed by news that the market 
leader in the technology sector of our economy was due to be 
crippled by a harsh remedy to the antitrust case. We've got to work 
to bring that confidence back. This is the time to put the interests 
of working Americans ahead of the interests of politicians, 
corporate executives and trial attorneys. We need to focus on the 
future, not the past. Both parties have agreed to abide by the terms 
of this landmark settlement. Let's accept the resolution they have 
reached in the matter!
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotally approve the proposed 
settlement. Thank you for considering my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Edie P. Reynolds



MTC-00033730

Wake Forest--Chamber of Commerce
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax: 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Please register my comments under the summary, ``Let's end 
the Microsoft lawsuit while both parties agree.'' This lawsuit 
has dragged on for years, and has cost American taxpayers over $30 
million to prosecute. Enough already! There is absolutely no reason 
to continue the suit any longer. I hope that the Department of 
Justice will take the same position as Microsoft and the federal 
prosecutors in this case: let's approve the settlement and move on. 
Let's examine the facts in this case with regard to the American 
economy and economic development. First of all, we're in a 
recession. This recession has driven up the unemployment rate and 
driven down the value of stocks. Thus, many Americans have lost 
their jobs, and many of those who still have employment have seen 
their savings devalued, Not good, right?
    Second, Microsoft is recognized innovative leader in American 
business technology. In fact, virtually every business that I've 
recruited to Wake Forest uses Microsoft products in some form or 
another. They rely on Microsoft to develop new products on a 
perpetual basis in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 
of business. Yet, Microsoft has been forced to spend untold millions 
of dollars on legal defense instead of research and development. 
Additionally, the legal battle has undoubtedly cast doubt in 
Microsoft's executives'' minds as to whether they can legally 
introduce innovative products without being sued. Which brings me to 
my final point. The American entrepreneurial spirit is our singular 
most valuable asset If creative American business leaders are 
intimidated to the extent that they stop creating efficient business 
products for the rest of us to enjoy, then we have in effect killed 
the American entrepreneurial spirit. We don't want that, do we?
    I request that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves the settlement 
Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Stephen Barrington
    Economic Development Director
    Wake Forest, North Carolina
    350 South White Street
    Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
    Tel. 919-556-1519
    Fax 919-556-8570
    Web: www.wakeforestna.com
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00033731

From: Fax No.: Jul. 21 2001 02:32AM P4
Patrick T. McHenry
Former Special Assistant to the Secretary
United States Department of Labor
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    As a former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the United 
States Department of Labor, I am very aware of the challenges 
government faces in trying deal effectively with American businesses 
and the American workforce. One cause of unemployment for

[[Page 30197]]

the American workforce is the threat and actual filing of lawsuites 
against which American business must defend itself.
    The federal government's case against Microsoft should be ended 
at this point in time. Both parties have agreed to a settlement. 
This settlement would mean the end of costly litigation for 
Microsoft. That's good news for American workers who have lost their 
jobs in this recession. You see, the less resources that Microsoft 
and other major corporate leaders have to invest in legal defense, 
the more funds they have available for research, development and, 
above all, job creation. Many people in the region in which I reside 
have lost their jobs. Many families are hurting. At this crucial 
stage in both our local and national economy, it is imperative that 
business and government work together. The perception that business 
and government have a constructive partnership will encourage 
investment and foster innovation among American industry.
    These two components mean more jobs for American workers. Judge 
Kollar- Kotelly should approve the Microsoft settlement, for 
American workers'' sake.
    Sincerely,
    Patrick T. McHenry
    1426 Buckingham Avenue--Gastonia, NC 28054



MTC-00033732

Edge, Inc.
100 Citrieon Ct
Cary, NC 27511
January 15, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Divisions
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    As the President and CEO of Edge, Inc., the Chairman of the 
Board of Unum Telecommunications, the Vice President of Sales for 
Armstrong Moving and Storage Company and a member of the National 
Board of the Paget Foundation, I have more than a little experience 
in the realm of business and industry, particularly in the area of 
sales and marketing. Each of the enterprises I work to build would 
be nothing if not for the positive public perception built by sales 
and marketing.
    Which brings me to my main point: lawsuits are bad for sales and 
marketing. Lawsuits make investors skittish, customers wary and 
employees uncertain. No matter how a company tries to present 
positive image, a perception will exist that a company has behaved 
improperly and is under intense scrutiny. No one wants to be 
scrutinized: not investors, not customers and certainly not 
employees.
    Microsoft has developed many of the products that make business 
efficient. Their success has encouraged investment not only in 
Microsoft, but throughout the entire tech sector. Customers have 
included virtually all segments of the American populace, from Wall 
Street to Main Street, from CEOs to homemakers. Microsoft employees 
have developed these revolutionary products that previous 
generations could not have imagined in their wildest dreams.
    All of these components of Microsoft's success have been put at 
risk by the antitrust suit against Microsoft. Because the economy is 
in bad shape, we must put this matter behind us. Microsoft and the 
federal government have reached a settlement agreement. Let's end 
this saga and allow Microsoft to go on leading American 
entrepreneurs in the twenty-first century.
    I hope that Judge Kollar Kotelly approves this settlement.
    Regards,
    Edward Grieve



MTC-00033733

482 TANNER WAY
LANSDALE, PENNA. 19446
JANUARY 7, 2002
ATTORNEY GENERA JOHN ASHCROFT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N-W
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am writing to express my opinion and beliefs on the recent 
antitrust settlement between Microsoft and the U.S. Department of 
Justice. I support the settlement 100%, but I am pessimistic about 
its passage and implementation. First off, I believe that settlement 
was not unreasonable. but the nine states in opposition are just 
grandstanding for their own political agendas. Microsoft is getting 
a raw deal and I think the matter will ultimately end up in the 
Supreme Court.
    That is a pity, because the settlement is rather fair. and is 
the best that anyt ratlonal person could expect. The settlement 
addresses the original complaints about Microsoft, and now they have 
been addressed by everything from barriers against retaliation for 
developing competing software to fixed licensing prices and redesign 
of Windows XP.
    At any rate, the recession has had a devastating effect on state 
budgets and the federal budget., and it is important that the 
technology industry be allowed to concentrate on business now Thank 
you for your time.
    Sincerely,
    CC: Senator Rick Santorum



MTC-00033734

PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT, CHAIRMAN
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS
ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH
JOSEPH R. BIDEN. JR., DELAWARE
STROM THURMOND, SOUTH CAROLINA
HERBERT KOHL, WISCONSIN
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA
RUSSELL D FEINGOLD, WISCONSIN
JON KYL, ARIZONA
CHARLES E. SHUMER, NEW YORK
MIKE DEWINE, OHIO
RICHARD J. DURBIN, ILLINOIS
JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA
MARIA CANTWELL, WASHINGTON
SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS
JOHN EDWARDS, NORTH CAROLINA
MITCH McCONNELL, KENTUCKY
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275
January 28, 2002
Ms. Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice--Antitrust Division
325 7th Street NW Suite 500
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms Hesse,
    We enclose the hearing record from the Judiciary Committee's 
December 12, 2001 hearing, ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look 
to the Future,'' as a public comment pursuant to the Tunney 
Act's public comment provision, 15 U.S.C  16(d), for the 
Department's or the Court's use as it deems appropriate.
    Sincerely,
    PATRICK J. LEAHY
    Chairman
    ORRIN G. HATCH
    Ranking Republican Member

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

DOCUMENTS FROM THE DECEMBER 12, 2001 HEARING ON ``THE 
MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Witness List

2. Hearing Transcript

3. Member Statements

    Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
    Senator Orrin G. Hatch
    Senator Herb Kohl
    Senator Richard J. Durbin
Senator Jeff Sessions
4. Witness Statements
    Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James, U.S. Department of 
Justice
    Jay L. Himes, Office of the Attorney General, New York
    Charles F. Rule, Counsel to Microsoft Corporation
    Professor Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School
    Dr. Mark N. Cooper, Consumer Federation of America
    Jonathan Zuck, Association for Competitive Technology
    Matthew Szulick, Red Hat, Inc.
    Mitchell E. Kertzman, Liberate Technologies
5. Written Statements Submitted for the Record
    Ralph Nader and James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
    Mark Havlicek, Digital Data Resources, Inc.
    Jerry Hilburn, Catfish Software, Inc.
    Lars H. Liebeler, Esq., Computing Technology Industry 
Association
    Dave Baker, EarthLink, Inc.
6. Additional Materials Submitted for the Record
    Proposed Final Judgement in U.S. v. Microsoft
    News Statement of Citizens Against Government Waste
    Letter from Senator Orrin G. Hatch to Assistant Attorney General 
Charles A. James
    Letter from Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James to 
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
    Letter from Robert H. Bork to Senators Patrick J. Leahy and 
Orrin G. Hatch

[[Page 30198]]

    Letter from James L. Barksdale to Senators Patrick J. Leahy and 
Orrin G. Hatch
    Letter from Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell to Mr. 
Steven A. Ballmer
7. Written Questions
    Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
    Senator Orrin G. Hatch
    Senator Herb Kohl
    Senator Mike DeWine
    Senator Richard J. Durbin
    Senator Mitch McConnell
    8. Answers to Written Questions
    Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James
    Professor Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School
    Mitchell Kertzman, Liberate Technologies
    Matthew Szulik, Red Hat, Inc.
    Charles F. Rule, Counsel to Microsoft Corporation
    Jonathan Zuck, Association for Competitive Technology
    Jay L. Himes, Office of the Attorney General, New York
    [As of 1/28/02, the Committee has not received answers to 
written questions from Dr. Cooper]
Witness List
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
10:00 a.m.
106 Dirksen Senate Office Building

PANEL I

The Honorable Charles A. James
Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, United States 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC

PANEL II

Jay Himes
    Chief, Antitrust Bureau Office of the New York State Attorney 
General, New York, NY
Charles F. Rule
    Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, Counsel to 
Microsoft Corporation, Washington, DC

PANEL III

Professor Lawrence Lessig, Esq.
    Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA
Mark N. Cooper, Ph.D.
    Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America, 
Washington, DC
Jonathan Zuck
    President, Association of Competitive Technology, Washington, DC
    Matthew J. Szulik
    President and Chief Executive Officer, Red Hat, Inc., Durham, NC
Mitchell E. Kertzman
    President and CEO, Liberate Technologies, San Carlos, CA
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
UNITED STATES SENATE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
Washington, DC
December 12, 2001
CONTENTS STATEMENT OF:
Hon Charles A. James, Assistant Attorney General,
Antitrust Division, United States Department of
Justice, Washington, DC
THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2001
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room SD-
106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, chairman 
of the committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Leahy, Kohl, Cantwell, Hatch, Kyl, 11 DeWine, 
Sessions, and McConnell.
    The Chairman. Good morning. I just want to do a little 
housekeeping here. I want to make sure the chairman and ranking 
member of the Antitrust Subcommittee are here, Senator Kohl and 
Senator DeWine, both of whom have done a superb job for years in 
handling antitrust matters.
    I told Senator DeWine earlier, and this will probably cause a 
recall petition from the Republican Party in Ohio, what a terrific 
job he did as chairman and then what a terrific job Senator Kohl has 
done as chairman on antitrust matters, and pointing out that they 
are issues of great complexity and great importance to everybody 
here in the Senate.
    I have looked at the proposed settlement the Department of 
Justice and nine States have transmitted to the district court that 
is a plan for the conclusion of what has been really landmark 
antitrust litigation. But now it has got to pass the legal test set 
out in the Tunney Act if it is going to gain court approval, and 
that test is both simple and broad. It requires an evaluation of 
whether the proposed settlement is in the public interest.
    There is significant difference of opinion over how well the 
proposed settlement passes this legal test. In fact, the States 
participating in the litigation against Microsoft are evenly split. 
Nine States joined in the 11 proposed settlement and nine non-
settling States presented the court with an alternative remedy.
    As the courts wrangle with the technical and complex legal 
issues at stake in this case, this committee is conducting hearings 
to educate ourselves, but also to educate the public about what this 
proposed settlement really means for our high-tech industry and for 
all of us who use computers at work and at school and at home.
    Scrutiny of the proposed settlement by this committee during the 
course of the Tunney Act proceeding is particularly important. The 
focus of our hearing today is to examine whether the proposed 
settlement is good public policy and not to go into the legal 
technicalities. The questions raised here and views expressed may 
help inform the court. I plan, with Senator Hatch, to forward to the 
court the record of this hearing for consideration as the courts 
goes about the difficult task of completing the Tunney Act 
proceedings and the remedy sought by the non-settling States.
    I am especially concerned that the district court take the 
opportunity seriously to consider the remedy proposal of the non-
settling States, and to consider it before she makes her final 
determination on the other parties'' proposed settlement. The 
insights of the other participants in this complicated and hard-
fought case are going to be valuable additions to the comments 
received in the Tunney Act proceeding. I would hope they would help 
inform the evaluation whether the settlement is in the public 
interest, a matter which for many people is still an open question.
    The effects of this case extend beyond simply the choices 
available in the software marketplace. The United States has long 
been the world leader in bringing innovative solutions to software 
problems, in creating new tools and applications for use on 
computers and the Web, and in driving forward the flow of capital 
into these new and rapidly growing sectors of the economy.
    This creativity is not limited just to Silicon Valley. I think 
of my own home area, Burlington, Vermont. It ranks seventh in the 
Nation in terms of patent filings. Burlington is 38,000 people and 
it is in a county of about 130,000 people. This is not per-capita; 
this is actual filings--seventh in the Nation.
    Whether the settlement proposal will help or hinder this process 
and whether the high-tech industries will play the important role 
they should in our Nation's economy is a larger issue behind the 
immediate effects of this proposal.
    With that in mind, I intend to ask the representatives of the 
settling parties how their resolution of this conflict will serve 
the ends that the antitrust laws require. Our courts have developed 
a test for determining the effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman 
Act case. The remedy must end the anticompetitive practices, it must 
deprive the wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and it must 
ensure that illegality never recurs. The Tunney Act also requires 
that any settlement of such a case serve the public interest.
    Now, these are all high standards, but they are reasonable ones 
and people have dealt with them for years. In this case, the DC 
Circuit, sitting en banc and writing unanimously, found that 
Microsoft had engaged in serious exclusionary practices, to the 
detriment of their competitors, and thus to all consumers. So we 
have to satisfy ourselves that these matters have been addressed and 
redressed, or if they have not, why not.
    I have noted my concern that the procedural posture of this case 
not jeopardize the opportunity of the non-settling States to have 
their day in court, and not deprive the district court of the value 
of their views on appropriate remedies in a timely fashion.
    In addition, I have two basic areas of concern about the 
proposed settlement. First, I find many of the terms of the 
settlement to be either confusingly vague, subject to manipulation, 
or, worse, both. Mr. Rule raised an important and memorable point 
when he last testified before this committee in 1997 during the very 
important series of hearings that were convened by Senator Hatch on 
competition in the digital age, hearings that helped shape a lot of 
thinking in the Senate.
    Testifying about the first Microsoft-Justice Department consent 
decree, Mr. Rule said,

[[Page 30199]]

``Ambiguities in decrees are typically resolved against the 
Government. In addition, the Government's case must rise or fall on 
the language of the decree; the Government cannot fall back on some 
purported `spirit'' or `purpose'' of the 
decree to justify an interpretation that is not clearly supported by 
the language.'' So we take seriously such counsel. We would 
worry if ambiguity in the proposed settlement would jeopardize its 
enforcement.
    Second, I am concerned that the enforcement mechanism described 
in the proposed decree lacks the power and the timeliness necessary 
to inspire confidence in its effectiveness. Particularly in light of 
the absence of any requirement that the decree be read in broad 
remedial terms, it is especially important that we inquire into the 
likely operation of the proposed enforcement scheme and its 
effectiveness.
    Any lawyer who has litigated cases--and, Mr. James, that 
would certainly include you--and any business person knows how 
distracting litigation of this magnitude can be. We all appreciate 
the value that reaching an appropriate settlement can have not only 
for the parties, but also for consumers who are harmed by 
anticompetitive conduct, and the economy.
    I am the first one to say we would like some finality so that 
everybody involved, all parties, can know what the standards are and 
all consumers can know what they are. Because of that, I don't 
come to this hearing pre-judging the merits of this proposed 
settlement, but instead as one who is ready to embrace a good 
settlement that puts an end to the merry-go-round of Microsoft 
litigation over consent decrees. The serious questions that have 
been raised about the scope, enforceability and effectiveness of 
this proposed settlement leave me concerned that if it is approved 
in its current form, it may simply be an invitation for the next 
chapter of litigation.
    I want an end to this thing. I think everybody wants an end to 
it, but we want an end to it where we know what the rules are going 
to be. If we don't know what the rules are going to be, as sure as 
the sun rising in the east we are going to face these issues again. 
On this point, I share the concern of Judge Robert Bork, who warns 
in his written submission that the proposed settlement 
``contains so many ambiguities and loopholes as to make it 
unenforceable and likely to guarantee years of additional 
litigation.
    So I look forward to hearing from the Department of Justice and 
the other witnesses here. I will put into the record a series of 
letters: one, a letter to myself and Senator Hatch from James 
Barksdale; another, a letter to Assistant Attorney General James 
from Senator Hatch; a letter from Senator Hatch from Assistant 
Attorney General James; letters to myself and Senator Hatch from 
Robert Bork; a letter to myself from Ralph Nader, with two 
enclosures; written testimony of Catfish Software, Inc; and written 
testimony of Mark Havlicek of Digital Data Resources, Inc.
    [The information referred to follows:]
    The Chairman. I yield to Senator Hatch, who did such superb 
hearings on this whole issue earlier. Senator Hatch. Well, thank 
you, Mr. Chairman. As you know, We conducted a series of hearings, 
as you have mentioned, in this committee in 1997 and 1998 to examine 
the policy implications of the competitive landscape of the then 
burgeoning high-tech economy and industry, which was about to 
explode with the advent of the Internet.
    Those hearings focused on competition in the industry, in 
general, and more specifically complaints that Microsoft had been 
engaged in anticompetitive behavior that threatened competition and 
innovation, to the detriment of consumers. Our goal was, and I 
believe today is to determine how best to preserve competition and 
foster innovation in the high-technology industry.
    Although the committee and I as its chairman was then criticized 
by some, I strongly believed then and continue to believe now that 
in a robust economy involving new technologies, effective antitrust 
enforcement today would prevent the need for heavy-handed Government 
regulation of business tomorrow.
    My interest in the competitive marketplace in the high-
technology industry was animated by my strong opposition to 
regulation of the industry, whether by government or by one or few 
companies. As we may remember, the hearings before the Judiciary 
Committee developed an extensive record of Microsoft's conduct and 
evidenced various efforts by the company to maintain and extend its 
operating system monopoly. These findings, I would note, were 
reaffirmed by a unanimous and ideologically diverse Court of 
Appeals. The Microsoft case and its ultimate resolution present one 
of the most important developments in antitrust law in recent 
history, certainly in my memory.
    As I have emphasized before, having a monopoly is not illegal 
under our laws. In fact, in a successful capitalistic system, 
striving to be one should be encouraged, as a matter of fact. 
However, anticompetitive conduct intended to maintain or extend this 
monopoly would harm competition and could possibly be violatire of 
our laws.
    I believe no one would disagree that the DC Circuit Court's 
decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle that a monopolist, 
even a monopolist in a high-tech industry like software, must 
compete on the merits to maintain its monopoly, which brings us to 
today's hearing. We are here to examine the policy implications of 
the proposed settlement in the Government's antitrust litigation 
against Microsoft.
    Mr. Chairman, rather than closing the book on the Microsoft 
inquiry, the proposed settlement appears to be only the end of the 
latest chapter. The settling parties are currently in the middle of 
the so-called Tunney Act process before the court, and the non-
settling parties have chosen to further litigate this matter and 
last week filed their own proposed settlement. This has been a 
complex case with significant consequences for Microsoft, high-tech 
entrepreneurs, and the American public as well.
    The proposed settlement between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department and nine of the plaintiff State attorneys general is 
highly technical. We have all been studying it and its impact with 
great interest. Each of us has heard from some, including some of 
our witnesses here today, that the agreement contains much that is 
very good. Not surprisingly, we have also heard and read much 
criticism of the settlement. These are complex issues, and I would 
hope today's hearing will illuminate the many questions that we 
have.
    I should note that about two weeks ago I sent a set of detailed 
and extensive questions about the scope, interpretation, and 
intended effects of the proposed settlement to the Justice 
Department, naturally seeking further information on my part.
    First, I want to commend the Department for getting the 
responses to these questions to me promptly. We received them 
yesterday. I think the questions, which were made public, and the 
Department's responses could be helpful to each member in forming an 
independent and fair analysis of the proposed settlement.
    To that end, and for the benefit of the committee, Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to make both the questions and the Department's answers 
part of the record for this hearing. So I would ask unanimous 
consent that they be made part of the record.
    As I noted in my November 29th letter to the Department, I have 
kept an open mind regarding this settlement and continue to do so. I 
have had questions regarding the practical enforceability of the 
proposed settlement and whether it will effectively remedy the 
unlawful practices identified by the DC Circuit and restore 
competition in the software marketplace.
    I am also cognizant of both the limitation of the claims 
contained in the original Justice Department complaint by the DC 
Circuit, as well as the standards for enforcement under settled 
antitrust law. I believe that further information regarding 
precisely how the proposed settlement will be interpreted, given DC 
Circuit case law, is necessary to any full and objective analysis of 
the remedies proposed therein. I hope that this hearing will result 
in the development of such information that would supplement the 
questions that I have put forth to the Department.
    Mr. Chairman, one important and critical policy issue that I 
would hope we can address today and that I would like all of our 
witnesses to consider as they wait to be empaneled so that they can 
discuss is the difficult issue of the temporal relation of antitrust 
enforcement in new high- technology markets.
    It cannot be overemphasized that timing is a critical issue in 
examining conduct in the so-called ``new economy.'' 
Indeed, the most significant lesson the Microsoft case has taught us 
is this fact. The DC Circuit found this issue noteworthy enough to 
discuss in the first few pages of its opinion, and I will quote from 
the unanimous court:
    ``[w]hat is somewhat problematic...is that just over six 
years have passed since Microsoft engaged in the first conduct 
plaintiffs allege to be anticompetitive. As the record in this case 
indicates, six years seems like an eternity in the computer 
industry. By the time a court can assess liability, firms, products, 
and the marketplace are likely to have changed dramatically. This, 
in turn,

[[Page 30200]]

threatens enormous practical difficulties for courts considering the 
appropriate measure of relief in equitable enforcement 
actions.'' The court goes on to say, ``Innovation to a 
large degree has already rendered the anticompetitive conduct 
obsolete (although by no means harmless).''
    Now, this issue is one that is relevant for this committee to 
consider as a larger policy matter, as well as how it relates to 
this case and the proposed settlement we are examining today.
    Let me just say that one of the things that worries me is what 
are the enforcement capabilities of this settlement agreement? It 
was only a few years before these matters arose that Microsoft had 
agreed to a consent, a conduct decree that many feel they did not 
live up to, and I think it is a legitimate issue to raise as to how 
will the agreement that the Justice Department has worked out with 
Microsoft and nine of the plaintiffs be enforced if anticompetitive 
conduct continues.
    In that regard, let me just raise Mr. Barksdale's letter, which 
I believe you put into the record.
    The Chairman. I did, I did.
    Senator Hatch. Well, let me just raise it because he does make 
some interesting comments in his letter and I can read them, I think 
they might be at least part of opening up the questions in this 
matter. I will just quote a few paragraphs.
    He says, ``These developments have stiffened my resolve to 
do all I can to ensure that competition and consumer choice are 
reintroduced to the industry. It is vitally important that no 
company can do to a future Netscape what Microsoft did to Netscape 
from 1995 to 1999. It is universally recognized that the 1995 
consent decree was ineffective, I respectfully submit that the 
Proposed Final Judgment, PFJ, which is the subject of the hearing, 
will be even less effective, if possible, than the 1995 decree in 
restoring competition and stopping anticompetitive behavior. 
Accordingly, Senator Leahy, I am going to follow your suggestion 
that I help the committee answer one of the central questions. If 
the PFJ had been in effect all along, how would it have affected 
Netscape? More important, how will it affect future 
Netscapes?''
    He describes the impact on future Netscapes as follows, and let 
me just read a couple of paragraphs in this regard.
    ``As discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous 
conclusion is that if the PFJ agreed upon last month by Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice had been in existence in 1994, 
Netscape would have never been able to obtain the necessary venture 
capital financing. In fact, the company would not have come into 
being in the first place. The work of Mark Andreesen's team at the 
University of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would likely 
have remained an academic exercise. An innovative, independent 
browser company simply could not survive under the PFJ, and such 
would be the effect on any company developing in the future 
technologies as innovative as the Microsoft did to Netscape from 
1995 to 1999. It is universally recognized that the 1995 consent 
decree was ineffective, I respectfully submit that the Proposed 
Final Judgment, PFJ, which is the subject of the hearing, will be 
even less effective, if possible, than the 1995 decree in restoring 
competition and stopping anticompetitive behavior. Accordingly, 
Senator Leahy, I am going to follow your suggestion that I help the 
committee answer one of the central questions. If the PFJ had been 
in effect all along, how would it have affected Netscape? More 
important, how will it affect future Netscapes?''
    He describes the impact on future Netscapes as follows, and let 
me just read a couple of paragraphs in this regard. ``As 
discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous conclusion is 
that if the PFJ agreed upon last month by Microsoft and the 
Department of Justice had been in existence in 1994, Netscape would 
have never been able to obtain the necessary venture capital 
financing. In fact, the company would not have come into being in 
the first place. The work of Mark Andreesen's team at the University 
of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would likely have 
remained an academic exercise. An innovative, independent browser 
company simply could not survive under the PFJ, and such would be 
the effect on any company developing in the future technologies as 
innovative as the browser was in the mid-1990s.'' He goes on to 
characterize whether or not Microsoft could have developed this 
itself, but let me just read the last few paragraphs of this letter.
    ``If the PFJ provisions are allowed to go into effect, it 
is unrealistic to think that anybody would ever secure venture 
capital financing to compete against Microsoft. This would be a 
tragedy for our Nation. It makes a mockery of the notion that the 
PFJ is ``good for the economy'' unquote. If the PFJ goes 
into effect, it will subject an entire industry to dominance by an 
unconstrained monopolist, thus snuffing out competition, consumer 
choice, and innovation in perhaps our Nation's most important 
industry. And, worse, it will allow them to extend their dominance 
to more businesses such as financial services, entertainment, 
telecommunications, and perhaps many others. Four years ago, I 
appeared before the committee and was able to demonstrate, with the 
help of the audience, that Microsoft undoubtedly had a monopoly. 
Now, it has been proven in the courts that Microsoft not only has a 
monopoly, but they have illegally maintained that monopoly through a 
series of abusive and predatory actions. I submit to the committee 
that Microsoft is infinitely stronger in each of their core 
businesses than they were four years ago, despite the fact that 
their principal arguments have been repudiated 8-0 by the 
Federal courts. I hope you will keep these thoughts in mind during 
your hearings.'' Then he said, ``A more detailed analysis 
of my views follows.''
    Well, the importance of that letter is basically Barksdale was 
one of the original complainants against Microsoft and was one of 
the very important witnesses before this committee in those years 
when we were trying to figure what we are doing here. I don't think 
you can ignore that, and so these questions have to be answered that 
he raises, plus the questions that I have given as well.
    So you have put that letter in the record?
    The Chairman. I have, and also I understood you wanted those 
letters that you had to Mr. James. Those are also part of the 
record.
    Senator Hatch. I appreciate it.
    Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful that you are 
continuing the committee's important role in high- technology policy 
matters, as I would expect you to do because I know that you take a 
great interest in these matters, as does, I think, every individual 
person on the committee.
    I certainly look forward to hearing our witnesses 23 today, and 
I am going to keep an open mind on where we are 24 going here and 
hopefully we can resolve these matters in a 25 way that is 
beneficial to everybody, including those who are against Microsoft 
and Microsoft itself.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator Kohl?
    Senator Kohl. Mr. Chairman, we thank you for holding this 
hearing here today.
    This is a crucial time for competition in the high-tech sector 
of our economy. After spending more than three years pursuing its 
groundbreaking antitrust case against Microsoft, the Government has 
announced a settlement. But the critical question remains, will this 
settlement break Microsoft's stranglehold over the computer software 
industry and restore competition in this vital sector of our 
economy? I have serious doubts that it will.
    An independent Federal court, both the trial court and 16 the 
Court of Appeals, found that Microsoft broke the law and that its 
violation should be fixed. This antitrust case was as big as they 
come. Microsoft crushed a competitor, illegally tried to maintain 
its monopoly, and stifled innovation in this market.
    Now, after all these years of litigation, of charges and 
counter-charges, this settlement leaves us wondering, did we really 
accomplish anything. Or in the words of the old song, ``is that 
all there is?'' Does this settlement obey the Supreme Court 
mandate that it must deny the antitrust vr 18 1 violator the fruits 
of its illegal conduct?
    It seems to me and to many, including nine of the States that 
joined the Federal Government in suing Microsoft, that this 
settlement agreement is not strong enough to do the job, to restore 
competition to the computer software industry. It contains so many 
loopholes, qualifications, and exceptions that many worry that 
Microsoft will easily be able to evade its provisions.
    Today, for the vast majority of computer users, the first thing 
they see when they turn on their machine is the now familiar 
Microsoft logo, placed on the Microsoft start menu, and all of their 
computer operations take place through the filter of Microsoft's 
Windows operating system. Microsoft's control over the market is so 
strong that today more than 95 percent of all personal computers run 
on the Windows operating system, a market share high enough to 
constitute a monopoly under antitrust law.
    Its share of the Internet browsing market is now over 85 
percent, and it reported a profit

[[Page 30201]]

margin of 25 percent in the most recent quarter, a very high number 
in challenging economic times. Microsoft has the power to dictate 
terms to manufacturers who wish to gain access to the Windows 
operating system and the ability to leverage its dominance into 
other forms of computer software. And Microsoft has never been shy 
about using its market power.
    Are we here today really confident that in five years this 
settlement will have had any appreciable impact on these facts of 
life in the computer industry? I am not.
    We stand today on the threshold of writing the rules of 
competition in the digital age. We have two options. One option 
involves one dominant company controlling the computer desktop 
facing minor restraints that expire in five years, but acting as a 
gatekeeper to 95 percent of all personal computer users. The other 
model is the flowering of innovation and new products that resulted 
from the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly nearly 20 years 
ago. From cell phones to faxes, from long-distance price wars to the 
development of the Internet itself, the end of the telephone 
monopoly brought an explosion of new technologies and services that 
benefit millions of consumers everyday. We should insist on nothing 
less in this case.
    In sum, any settlement in this case should make the market for 
computer software as competitive as the market for computer hardware 
is today. While there is nothing wrong with settling, of course, we 
should insist on a settlement that has an immediate, substantial and 
permanent impact on restoring competition in this industry.
    I thank our witnesses for testifying today and we look 24 
forward to hearing your views.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Senator DeWine?
    Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding 
this very important hearing concerning the Department of Justice's 
Proposed Final Judgment in its case against Microsoft.
    Mr. Chairman, as we examine this judgment and attempt to imagine 
what it will mean for the future of competition in this market, we 
must keep in mind the serious nature of this case. According to the 
DC Circuit Court, Microsoft did, in fact, violate our antitrust 
laws. Their behavior hurt the competitive marketplace. This is 
something that we must keep in mind as we examine the Proposed Final 
Judgment.
    This hearing is particularly important at this time because 
Federal law does require the district court to examine the proposed 
settlement and determine if it is, in fact, in the public interest. 
Federal law clearly allows the public to be heard on such matters. I 
believe that this forum today will further that process of public 
discussion.
    The Court of Appeals in this case, relying on established 
Supreme Court case law, explained what an appropriate remedy in an 
antitrust case such as this one must seek to accomplish. It should 
unfetter the market from anticompetitive conduct, terminate the 
illegal monopoly, and deny the defendant the fruits of its 
violations. It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we examine whether 
the decree would, in fact, accomplish these goals.
    There seems to be a great deal of disagreement about what the 
competitive impact of the decree will be. While the proposed 
settlement correctly, I believe, focuses primarily on the market for 
middleware, there has been a great deal of concern raised about the 
mechanism for enforcing such a settlement. Specifically, I think we 
need 8 to discuss further whether the public interest would be 
better served with a so-called special master or some sort of other 
administrative mechanism, or whether the Justice Department could be 
more effective enforcing the decree on its own.
    In addition to the Department of Justice's Proposed Final 
Judgment, we also have the benefit of another remedies proposal that 
has been submitted to the court by nine States that did not join 
with the Antitrust Division's proposal. I would like to hear from 
our witnesses about the role they believe this alternative proposal 
should play in the ongoing Tunney Act proceedings.
    As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Court of Appeals 
directed that any remedy should seek to deny Microsoft the fruits of 
its illegal activities. One clear benefit Microsoft derived from its 
violations was the effective destruction of Netscape as a serious 
competitor and a decrease in Java's market presence. It is obviously 
impossible to go back in time and resurrect the exact market 
structure that existed, but it is important to discuss how the 
proposed settlement deals with this problem.
    I would also like to note for the record that Microsoft will be 
represented today by one of their outside counsel, Rick Rule, rather 
than an actual employee of the company. Mr. Rule is an outstanding 
antitrust lawyer. He is well qualified to testify on this issue and 
we certainly look forward to hearing his testimony today.
    However, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am disappointed that 
Microsoft chose not to send an actual officer of the company because 
it does not appear to represent, frankly, the fresh start that I 
think we were all hoping to begin today.
    Finally, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Hatch, and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman Kohl for all of your hard 
work in putting this hearing together and all of your work on this 
issue generally over the last few years.
    I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today and to 
the committee's continuing oversight of this very important issue.
    The Chairman. Mr. James, there is a vote on the floor. I think 
there are two or three minutes left in the roll call vote. We are 
going to suspend while we go to vote, but I think--
    Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, I have a really brief 
statement. Could I make that before you adjourn?
    The Chairman. You can.
    Senator McConnell. Let me just say that this hearing and the 
accompanying media spectacle indicate the Microsoft case is the 
subject of significant public interest and debate. Some argue that 
the case itself should never have 9 been filed to begin with, and 
now after nearly four years of litigation, Microsoft, the Department 
of Justice and nine States have reached a settlement.
    I just want to commend the parties for their tireless effort and 
countless hours spent in reaching the compromise. Settlement is 
nearly always preferable to litigation, and regulation by the market 
is nearly always better than regulation by litigation, or the 
Government for that matter.
    As far as what the public thinks, just this week a nationwide 
survey indicated that the U.S. Government and Microsoft agreed to 
settle the antitrust case. However, nine State AGs argued that the 
antitrust case against Microsoft should continue. Which statement do 
you agree with?
    The U.S. economy and consumers would be better off if the issue 
Were settled as soon as possible: 70 percent. The curt should 
continue to investigate whether Microsoft should be punished for its 
business activities: 2percent. Not that the public is always 
determinative, but I thought that would be an interesting 
observation to add.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. James, I think you would note from the 
comments that they sort of go across the board here. The majority of 
people favor a settlement, but I must say that I don't think the 
majority of people favor any settlement; they favor a good 
settlement, and that is what the questions will be directed at and 
that is why nine attorneys general have expressed concern. Nine 
agreed with the settlement, nine disagreed with the settlement. 
These are all very good, very talented people. So in your testimony 
when we come back, you have heard a number of the questions that 
have been raised and we look forward to you responding to them.
    We will stand in recess while we vote.
    [The committee stood in recess from 10:40 a.m. to 11:14 a.m.]
    The Chairman. I should note for the record that Mr. James has 
served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division 
since June 2001. He previously served as Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General for the Antitrust Division for the first Bush administration 
from 198to 1992. He served as Acting Assistant Attorney General for 
several months in 1992, then was head of the antitrust practice at 
Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue, in Washington.
    Not knowing what the Senate schedule might be, Mr. James, we 
will put your whole statement in the record, of course. I wonder if 
you might summarize it, but also with some reference to the charge 
made in the letter to Senator Hatch and myself by Mr. Barksdale, who 
said had these been the ground rules, he never would have been able 
to get Netscape off the ground. Had these been the ground rules at 
the time they started Netscape, they never would have been able to 
create Netscape. If that is accurate, of course, then we have got a 
real problem.
    So, Mr. James, it is all yours.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES A. JAMES, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, 
ANTITRUST DIVISION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC

    Mr. James. Thank you, Senator Leahy, and good morning to you and 
members of the committee. I am pleased to appear before you today to 
discuss the proposed settlement of

[[Page 30202]]

our still pending case against Microsoft Corporation.
    With me today are Deborah Majoris, my deputy, and Phil Malone, 
who has been the lead staff lawyer on the Microsoft case from the 
very beginning. I note their presence here because they were the 
ones who responded to the judge's order that we negotiate around the 
clock and I think they have recovered now.
    As you know, on November the Department and nine States entered 
into the proposed settlement. We are in the midst of the Tunney Act 
period, as you know, and that will end at the end of January, at 
which point the district court will determine whether the settlement 
is in the public interest. We think that it is.
    I am somewhat limited in what I can say about the case because 
of the pendency of the Tunney Act proceeding. But, of course, I am 
happy to discuss this with the committee for the purpose of public 
explication.
    When thinking about the Microsoft case, from my perspective it 
is always important to distinguish between Microsoft, the public 
spectacle, and Microsoft, the actual legal dispute. We look, in 
particular, to what the Department alleged in its complaint and how 
the court ruled on those allegations.
    The Antitrust Division's complaint had four counts: attempted 
monopolization of the browser market, in violation of Section 2; 
individual anticompetitive acts and a course of conduct to maintain 
the operating system monopoly, in violation of Section of the 
Sherman Act; tying its own browser to the operating system, in 
violation of Section 1; and exclusive dealing, in violation of 
Section 1.
    I would note that a separate monopoly leveraging claim brought 
by the States was thrown out prior to trial, and that the States at 
one time had alleged in their complaint monopolization of the 
Microsoft office market, and that was eliminated by the States 
through an amendment.
    There was, of course, a trial before Judge Jackson, at the 
conclusion of which Judge Jackson found for the Government on 
everything but exclusive dealing and ordered Microsoft to be split 
into separate operating system and applications businesses after a 
one-year transitional period under interim conduct remedies.
    On appeal, however, only the monopoly maintenance claim survived 
unscathed. The attempted monopoly claim was dismissed. The tying 
claim was reversed and remanded for further proceedings under a much 
more rigorous standard. And the remedy was vacated, with the court 
ordering remedial hearings before a new judge to address the fact 
that the liability findings had been, in their words, 
``drastically curtailed.''
    Even the monopoly maintenance claim was cut back in the Court of 
Appeals decision. The Court of Appeals found for Microsoft on some 
of the specific practices and ruled against the Government on the 
so-called course of conduct theory of liability.
    I recount all of this history to make two basic points that I 
think are important as we discuss the settlement. First, the case, 
even as initially framed by the Department of Justice, was a fairly 
narrow challenge. It was never a direct assault on the acquisition 
of the operating system monopoly itself.
    Second, and perhaps much more important, the case that emerged 
from the Court of Appeals was much narrower still, focusing 
exclusively on the middleware threat to the operating system 
monopoly and specific practices, not a course of conduct found to be 
anticompetitive.
    The Court of Appeals decision determined the reality of the case 
as we found it in the Department when I first arrived there in June, 
as you noted. The conduct found to be unlawful by the court was the 
sole basis for relief.
    It is probably worth talking just briefly about the monopoly 
maintenance claim. The complaint alleges that Microsoft engaged in 
various anticompetitive practices to impede the development of rival 
Web browsers and Java. These products came to be known as middleware 
and were thought to pose a threat to the operating system monopoly 
because they had the potential to become platforms for other 
software applications. The court noted that the middleware threat 
was nascent; that is to say that no one could predict when, if ever, 
enough applications would be written to middleware for it to 
significantly displace the operating system monopoly.
    A few comments about the settlement itself. In general terms, 
our settlement has several important points that we think fully and 
demonstrably remedy the middleware issues that were at the heart of 
the monopoly maintenance claim.
    In particular, our decree contains a very broad definition of 
middleware that specifically includes the forms of platform software 
that have been identified as potential operating system threats 
today and likely to emerge as operating system threats in the 
future. It prohibits in the broadest terms the types of contractual 
restrictions and exclusionary arrangements the Court of Appeals 
found to be unlawful. It fences in those prohibitions with 
appropriate non-discrimination and non- retaliation provisions, and 
it creates an environment in which middleware developers can create 
programs that compete with Microsoft on a function-by-function basis 
through a regime of mandatory API documentation and disclosure.
    In the most simple terms, we believe our remedy will permit the 
development and deployment of middleware product without fear of 
retaliation or economic disadvantage. That is what we believe and 
what the court found that consumers actually lost through 
Microsoft's unlawful conduct, and that is what we think consumers 
will gain through our remedy.
    With specific reference to what Mr. Barksdale said, if I may, I 
have not reviewed Mr. Barksdale's letter. I know that in this 
particular situation, with so much at stake in this particular 
settlement, I have seen lots of hyperbolic statements. I certainly 
wouldn't necessarily characterize his in that vein without having 
read it in some detail.
    I would note, however, that--
    The Chairman. Mr. James, we are going to give you an opportunity 
to do that because I want you to look at it. You can feel free to 
call it hyperbolic or however, but I would ask that you and your 
staff look at his letter, which does raise some serious questions, 
and I would like to see what response you have for the record.
    Mr. James. I would be happy to do so. And with that, I would be 
happy to answer your questions.
    The Chairman. Did you have more that you wanted to say on the 
letter?
    Mr. James. No, sir. I am happy to respond to what you folks want 
to talk about.
    The Chairman. The Department of Justice has been involved in 
litigation against Microsoft for more than 1 years. I am one of 
those who had hoped throughout that that the parties might come to 
some conclusion. I think that if you can have a fair conclusion, it 
is in the best interests of the consumers, the Government, 
Microsoft, competitors, and everybody else. I have no problem with 
that, but that presupposes the right kind of settlement.
    Over the course of those 1years, the parties entered into one 
consent decree that just ended up with a whole lot more litigation 
over the terms of that consent decree. I mention that because you 
take this settlement and it is already being criticized by some for 
the vagueness of its terms and its loopholes. Judge Robert Bork 
warned, and I think I am quoting him correctly, ``It is likely 
to guarantee years of additional litigation.''
    Now, what kind of assurances can you give or what kind of 
predictions can you give that if this settlement is agreed to by the 
court that we are going to see an end to this litigation and we are 
going to have a stop to this kind of merry-go-round of Microsoft 
litigation concerning compliance or even the meanings of the consent 
decree?
    I notice a lot of people in this room on both sides of the 
issue. I have a feeling that they are here solely because of their 
interest in Government and not because the meter is running. A lot 
of us would like to see this thing end, but why do you feel that 
this settlement is so good that that is going to end?
    Mr. James. Well, Senator, that is certainly a legitimate 
question and I understand the spirit in which it is asked. One of, I 
think, the facts of life is that one of the reasons that we have so 
many antitrust lawyers, and perhaps why there are so many of them in 
this room, is that firms with substantial market positions very 
often are the subject of appropriate antitrust scrutiny, and so it 
is with Microsoft and so it should be.
    Our settlement here is a settlement that resolves a fairly 
complex piece of litigation. It by its terms is going to be a 
complex settlement, inasmuch as it does cover a broad range of 
activities and has to look into the future prospectively in a manner 
that benefits consumers. And some of that consumer benefit certainly 
will come from the development of competing products. Some of that 
consumer benefit, however, will come from competition from Microsoft 
as it moves into other middleware products, et cetera.
    We think that the terms of the decree are certainly enforceable. 
I think so much of what has been called a loophole are things that 
are carve-outs necessary to facilitate pro-competitive behavior, and 
we certainly think

[[Page 30203]]

 that the enforcement power embodied in this decree--I would 
say an unprecedented level of enforcement power, three tiers of 
enforcement power--is sufficiently to let the Department of 
Justice do its job.
    The Chairman. But keep in mind that usually in these kinds of 
decrees, if it is not specifically laid out, the courts tend to 
decide the vague questions against the Government, not for the 
Government. Fortune Magazine said even the loopholes have 
loopholes--a pretty strong statement from a very pro-business 
magazine. The settlement limits the types of retaliation Microsoft 
can take against PC manufacturers that want to carry or promote non-
Microsoft software, but some would say that it gives a green light 
to other types of retaliation.
    Now, why doesn't the settlement ban all types of retaliation? 
The Court of Appeals said twice that if you commingle the browser 
and operating system code, you violate Section of the Sherman Act. 
The proposed settlement contains no prohibition on commingling code. 
There is no provision barring the commingling of browser code and 
the operating code. So you have got areas where they can retaliate. 
You don't have the barring of this commingling of code.
    I mean, are Fortune Magazine, Judge Bork and others justified in 
thinking there are a few too many loopholes here, notwithstanding 
the levels of enforcement?
    Mr. James. Let me take your points in order. First, on the 
subject of retaliation, retaliation is a defined term in this 
decree. It is a term that we are using to define a sort of conduct 
that Microsoft can engage in when it engages in ordinary commercial 
transactions.
    I don't think that there is any scope in the bounds of this case 
to prohibit Microsoft from engaging in any form of collaborative 
conduct with anyone in the computer industry, and certainly the 
types of collaborative conduct that are permitted, the so-called 
loopholes, are the type of conduct that is permitted under standard 
Supreme Court law embodied in decisions like Broadcast Music v. 
NCAA, and also embodied in the Federal Trade Commission-Department 
of Justice joint venture guidelines as sanctioned forms of conduct. 
So we think that antitrust lawyers certainly can understand these 
types of issues and we think the courts can understand these types 
of issues.
    Secondly, with regard to your more particular point about 
commingling code, it is certainly the case that the Court of 
Appeals, following upon the district court decision, found that 
Microsoft had engaged in an act of

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY ``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''

    December 12, 2001
    I am troubled by the decision of Committee, acting in its 
official capacity, to send a transcript of this hearing to the 
federal district court that will determine the outcome of this 
pending litigation. By taking the apparently unprecedented step of 
sending a transcript of a hearing on pending litigation to the judge 
that is deciding the case, this Committee may have unintentionally 
traversed the critical boundary between attempting to inform the 
court and attempting to influence it.
    The Constitution vests the legislative power in the Congress, 
Article I, ï¿½1, the executive power in the President, Article II, 
 1, and the judicial power in the Supreme Court and 
lower federal courts, Article III,  1. Thus, Congress 
has the power to make law pursuant to its enumerated powers, the 
President has the power to enforce these laws, and the courts have 
the separate power to ``say what the law 
is''--``to rule on cases ... to decide them,'' 
Marbury-- v. Madison, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 17(1803); Plaut v. 
Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 51U.S. 211,21(1995).
    The separation of powers principle not only outlines the 
distinct spheres of operation of the three branches of government 
but also guides the branches in their dealings with each other. It 
is crystal clear that the Framers of our Constitution intended to 
have a judiciary that is independent of Congress. The provision for 
judges to hold office during good behavior in Article III, 1, for 
example, was said by Alexander Hamilton to constitute an 
``excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the 
representative body.'' THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, at 46(Hamilton) 
(Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). Thus, with respect to this case, 
Congress, the Senate, and this Committee, should defer to the court 
to decide the case by exercising its independent judgement. A 
publicized congressional hearing and a transcript submission to the 
court can only be perceived as an attempt to create for senators a 
status at a Tunney hearing that neither the court nor the Tunney Act 
permits.
    While the Tunney Act provides that a district court should 
accept comments from the public on a proposed antitrust settlement 
agreement, it does not provide for any role by the legislative 
branch in such a hearing. See Pub. L. No. 93-52(1974). Indeed, 
the Congressional Research Service has informed me that it has found 
``no instances in which any comments-- whether Hearing 
transcripts, summaries of Hearing transcripts, or other written 
communications--were sent to'' the district court in a 
Tunney Act hearing. Congressional Research Service, Memorandum (Dec. 
18,2001).
    While any senator may file comments on a proposed settlement 
agreement as a private citizen, it infringes upon the separation of 
powers Page of principle for the Senate or this Committee officially 
to do so. It is the litigants and the public that inform the court 
in a Tunney Act hearing, not the Congress..See Pub. L. No. 
93-528. For this Committee to submit its views on the merits 
of pending litigation creates the appearance of an attempt to 
influence the Article III federal court in the exercise of its 
independent judicial power.
    In addition to my constitutional concern, I have an underlying 
prudential concern. This transcript will include several statements 
from Senators opining on the merits of the Microsoft settlement 
agreement. A case such as this one involves a complex body of law 
and an extraordinary amount of evidence. Neither I nor, to the best 
of my knowledge, any other member of this Committee or of the Senate 
has had an opportunity to thoroughly review the law and the facts of 
this case. Consequently, our opinion with respect to this non-
legislative matter is worth no more than that of any other 
reasonably informed citizen who may submit information to the court. 
There is no legitimate rationale for any court to give more weight 
to our opinions, whether stamped with the imprimatur of this 
Committee or not, than to the opinions of others. Accordingly, I 
respectfully object to the Chairman and Ranking Member's decision, 
without a vote of the Committee, to submit on behalf of the 
Committee, a copy of the transcript of this hearing to the district 
court.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. JAMES ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL ANTITRUST 
DIVISION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE 
CONCERNING THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE PRESENTED ON 
DECEMBER 12, 200

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to 
appear before you today to discuss the Department's still-pending 
antitrust enforcement action against Microsoft Corporation.
    On November 2, 2001, the Department stipulated to entry of a 
proposed consent decree that would resolve the case. Nine states 
joined in the proposed settlement.'' We are in the midst of the 
60-day public comment period under the Tunney Act, after which we 
will file a response to the comments, and the district court will 
rule on whether the proposed consent decree is in the public 
interest. Nine other states, and the District of Columbia, have not 
signed the proposed consent decree.
    The Department's position regarding the proposed settlement is 
set forth in documents filed in the pending Tunney Act proceeding. 
Because of the pendency of the proceeding, and the somewhat remote 
possibility that the case will return to litigation, I am somewhat 
limited in what I can say about the case and settlement. 
Nonetheless, I am happy to appear before you today to discuss in 
general terms how the settlement promotes the public interest by 
resolving the allegations sustained by the court of appeals.
    When we in the Department address the Microsoft case, it is 
important for us
    1 New York, Ohio, Illinois, Kentuck)'', Louisiana, 
Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin to ignore the 
media spectacle and clash-of-the-titans imagery, and focus instead 
on the actual legal dispute presented to the court. In discussing 
the case and the proposed consent decree, it is important to keep in 
mind not only ,,','hat the Department alleged in our complaint, but 
how the courts--in particular, the DC Circuit--ruled. As a 
result of the appeals court's ruling, the case is in many important 
respects considerably narrower than the one the Department 
originally brought in the spring of 199and narrower still than Judge 
Jackson's ruling in June of 2000.
    I would like to take a few minutes to refocus attention on the 
legal allegations charged in the complaint, how those allegations 
were resolved in the courts, and

[[Page 30204]]

the remedies in the proposed consent decree presently undergoing 
Tunney Act review. I believe these proposed remedies fully and 
demonstrably resolve the monopoly maintenance finding that the DC 
Circuit affirmed.
    The complaints flied by the Department, the states, and the 
District of Columbia alleged: (1) that Microsoft had engaged in a 
series of specific anticompetitive acts, and a course of 
anticompetitive conduct, to maintain its monopoly position in the 
market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible 
personal computers, in violation of Section of the Sherman Act; (2) 
that Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the web browser market, 
also in violation of Section 2; (3) that Microsoft had illegally 
tied its web browser, Internet Explorer, to its operating system, in 
violation of Section 1; and (4) that Microsoft had entered into 
exclusive dealing arrangements that also violated Section 1. A 
separate monopoly leveraging claim advanced by the state plaintiffs 
was dismissed prior to trial. After a full trial on the merits, the 
district court ultimately sustained the first three claims, while 
finding that the exclusive dealing claim had not been proved.
    The DC Circuit, however, significantly narrowed the case, 
affirming the district court's finding of liability only as to the 
monopoly maintenance claim, and even there only as to a smaller 
number of specified anticompetitive actions. Of the twenty 
anticompetitive acts the court of appeals reviewed, it reversed with 
respect to eight of the acts that the district court had sustained 
as elements of the monopoly maintenance claim. Additionally, the DC 
Circuit reversed the lower court's finding that Microsoft's 
``course of conduct'' separately violated Section of the 
Sherman Act. It reversed the district court's rulings on the 
attempted monopolization and tying claims, remanding the tying claim 
for further proceedings under a much more difficult rule of reason 
standard. And, of course, it vacated the district court's final 
judgment that had set forth the break-up remedy and interim conduct 
remedies.
    The antitrust laws do not prohibit a firm from having a 
monopoly, but only from illegally acquiring or maintaining a 
monopoly through interference with the competitive efforts of 
rivals. There has never been any serious contention that Microsoft 
acquired its operating system monopoly through unlawful means, and 
the existence of the operating system monopoly itself was not 
challenged in this case.
    With regard to the monopoly maintenance claim, the court of 
appeals upheld the conclusion that Microsoft had engaged in unlawful 
exclusionary conduct by using contractual provisions to prohibit 
computer manufacturers from supporting competing middleware products 
on Microsoft's operating system; by prohibiting consumers and 
computer manufacturers from removing Microsoft's middleware products 
from the desktop; and by reaching agreements with software 
developers and third parties to exclude or disadvantage competing 
middleware products--all to protect Microsoft's monopoly in the 
operating system market.
    The Department proved that Microsoft had engaged in these 
anticompetitive practices to discourage the development and 
deployment of rival web browsers and Java technologies, in an effort 
to prevent them from becoming middleware threats to its operating 
system monopoly. Netscape had gained a respectable market share as a 
technology for navigating the then-burgeoning Internet, and Netscape 
proponents were touting the prospect of a new world of Internet 
computing that would make operating systems less relevant. Netscape 
touted its web browser as a new category of software that came to be 
known as ``middleware,'' a form of software that, like 
Microsoft's Windows operating system, exposed a broad range of 
applications program interfaces (``APIs'') to which 
software developers could write applications. This created the 
potential that--if Netscape Navigator continued to gain market 
share and could run on operating systems other than Microsoft's, and 
if large numbers of software developers wrote applications programs 
to it--computer users would have viable competitive 
alternatives to Microsoft.
    The middleware threat was nascent. That is, as both the district 
court and the court of appeals acknowledged, it was a potential 
threat to the operating system monopoly that had not )'el become 
real. It could not be predicted when, if ever, enough applications 
programs would be written to middleware products for middleware to 
significantly displace Microsoft operating systems. Microsoft took 
this nascent middleware threat to its operating system monopoly 
seriously. The trial record disclosed a corporate preoccupation with 
thwarting Netscape and displacing Netscape's Navigator with 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer as the prevailing web browser. This 
campaign featured a host of strong-arm tactics aimed at various 
computer manufacturers, Internet access providers, and independent 
software developers. Even the decision to integrate its own browser 
into the operating system--in effect, giving it away for 
free--had an element of impeding the growth of Netscape and 
once was described as taking away Netscape's oxygen. Microsoft took 
similar actions against Java technologies. Among other things, 
Microsoft required software developers to promote its own version of 
Java technology exclusively and threatened developers if they 
assisted competing Java products.
    The district court ruled not only that Microsoft had engaged in 
various specified illegal exclusionary practices, but that these 
acts were part of an overall anticompetitive course of conduct. The 
DC Circuit agreed as to some of the specified practices, while 
ruling that others--for example, Microsoft's practice of 
preventing computer manufacturers from substituting their own user 
interfaces over the Windows interface supplied by 
Microsoft--Were justified and thus lawful. The DC Circuit also 
rejected the course-of-conduct theory, under which Microsoft's 
specific practices could be viewed as parts of a broader, more 
general monopolistic scheme, ruling that Microsoft's practices must 
be viewed individually.
    Following the appellate court's instructions, we, in considering 
a possible remedy, focused on the specific practices that the court 
had ruled unlawful. We took as a starting point the district court's 
interim conduct remedies. Those remedies, however, were based on a 
much wider range of liability findings than had been affirmed on 
appeal. Accordingly, they had to be tailored to the findings that 
had actually been affirmed. Further, because the interim conduct 
remedies were designed to apply only as a stop-gap until the 
district court's divestiture order was implemented, we broadened 
them in important respects to more full{time} ; address the remedial 
objectives of arresting the anticompetitive conduct, preventing its 
recurrence, and restoring lost competition to the marketplace. 
Finally, we updated the remedies to strengthen their long-term 
effectiveness in the face of the rapid technological innovation that 
continues to characterize the computer industry--so that 
the,,'' will be relevant in the Windows XP operating system 
world and beyond.
    Under the proposed consent decree, Microsoft will be required to 
disclose to other software developers the interfaces used by 
Microsoft's middleware to interoperate with the operating system, 
enabling other software developers to create competing products that 
emulate Microsoft's integrated functions. Microsoft will also have 
to disclose the protocols that are necessary for software located in 
a server computer to interoperate with Windows on a PC. Microsoft 
will have to permit computer manufacturers and consumers to 
substitute competing middleware software on the desktop. It will be 
prohibited from retaliating against computer manufacturers or 
software developers for supporting or developing certain competing 
software. To further guard against possible retaliation, Microsoft 
will be required to license its operating system to key computer 
manufacturers on uniform terms for five ``,'ears.
    Microsoft will be prohibited from entering into agreements 
requiring the exclusive support or development of certain Microsoft 
software, so that software developers and computer manufacturers can 
continue to do business with Microsoft while also supporting and 
developing rival middleware products. And Microsoft will be required 
to license any intellectual property to computer manufacturers and 
software developers necessary for them to exercise their rights 
under the proposed decree, including, for example, using the 
middleware protocols disclosed by ]Microsoft to interoperate with 
the operating system.
    And assumption that, had we litigated the remedy, we were 
certain to have secured all of this relief and possibly more misses 
the mark. The middleware definition, for example, was a very complex 
issue and would have been hard fought in a litigated remedy 
proceeding. The term had no generally accepted industry or technical 
meaning. At the time of trial, the term ,,,,,as used to describe 
software programs that exposed APIs. But in today's world, by virtue 
of the extensive degree to which software programs interact with 
each other, a very broad range of programs--large and small, 
simple and complex--expose APIs. At the same time, middleware 
had to be defined

[[Page 30205]]

more broadly than the browser, or it would not provide sufficient 
protection for the potential sources of competition that might 
emerge. So we developed a definition of middleware, designed to 
encompass all technologies that have the potential to be middleware 
threats to Microsoft's operating system monopoly. It captures, in 
today's market, Internet browsers, e-mail client software, networked 
audio/video client software, and instant messaging software. On a 
going-forward basis, it also provides guidelines for what types of 
software will be considered middleware for purposes of the decree in 
the future. These guidelines are critical because, while it is 
important that future middleware products be captured by the 
proposed decree, those products will not necessarily be readily 
identified as such.
    The proposed decree protects competition in the middleware 
market through a variety of affirmative duties and prohibitions, 
which I listed a minute ago. By requiring disclosure of a broad 
range of interfaces and protocols that will secure interoperability 
for rival software and servers, broadly banning exclusive dealing, 
giving computer manufacturers and consumers extensive control of the 
desktop and initial boot sequence, and prohibiting a broad range of 
retaliatory conduct, the proposed decree will require Microsoft to 
fundamentally change the ray in which it deals with computer 
manufacturers, Internet access providers, software developers, and 
others.
    These prohibitions had to be devised keeping in mind that 
Microsoft will continue for the foreseeable future to have a 
monopoly in the operating systems market. While we recognized that 
not all forms of collaboration between Microsoft and others in the 
industry are anticompetitive, and that some actually benefit 
competition, we drafted the non-discrimination and non-retaliation 
provisions broadly enough to prevent Microsoft from using its 
monopoly power to apply anticompetitive pressure in this fashion.
    We concluded, particularly in light of intervening technological 
developments in the computer industry, that the remedial objective 
of restoring lost competition had to mean something different than 
attempting to restore Netscape and Java specifically to their 
previous status as potential nascent threats to Microsoft's 
monopoly. Attempting to turn back the hands of time would likely 
prove futile and would risk sacrificing important innovations that 
have moved the industry beyond float point. So we focused instead on 
the market as it exists today, and where it appears to be heading 
over the next few years, and devised a remedy to recreate the 
potential for the emergence of competitive alternatives to 
Microsoft's operating system monopoly through middleware 
innovations. With a reported 70,000-odd applications currently 
designed to run on Windows, the applications barrier to entry is 
quite formidable. The most effective avenue for restoring the 
competitive potential of middleware, we concluded, was to ensure 
that middleware developers had access to the technical information 
necessary to create middleware programs that could compete with 
Microsoft in a meaningful way--that is, by requiring Microsoft 
to disclose the APIs needed to enable competing middleware 
developers to create middleware that matches Microsoft's in 
efficiency and functionality.
    API disclosure had apparently been a very difficult obstacle to 
resolution of the case at every stage. There had never been 
an,,'' allegation in the case that Windows was an essential 
facility, the proprietary technology for which had to be openly 
shared in the industry. So we are very pleased that we were able to 
secure this crucial provision in the proposed decree.
    Similarly, the proposed decree goes beyond the district court's 
order in requiring Microsoft to disclose communications protocols 
for servers if they are embedded in the operating system, thereby 
protecting the potential for server-based applications to emerge as 
a competitive alternative to Microsoft's operating systems monopoly. 
Although the issue of Microsoft's potential use of its monopoly 
power to inhibit server-based competition was barely raised and 
never litigated in the district court, we believed it was an 
important concern to resolve in the final negotiations.
    The proposed decree also requires Microsoft to create and 
preserve ``default'' settings, such that certain of 
Microsoft's integrated middleware functions will not be able to 
override the selection of a third-party middleware product, and 
requires Microsoft to create add/delete functionality to make it 
easier for computer manufacturers and users to replace Microsoft 
middleware functionality with independently developed middleware. 
These are other important respects in which, in light of intervening 
technological changes, the proposed decree goes beyond the relief 
contemplated in the district court's interim relief order. By giving 
middleware developers the means of creating fully, competitive 
products, requiring the creation of add/delete functionality, and 
making it absolutely clear that computer manufacturers can, in fact, 
replace Microsoft middleware on the desktop, the decree will do as 
much as possible to restore the nascent threat to the operating 
system monopoly that browsers once represented.
    The proposed decree contains some of the most stringent 
enforcement provisions ever contained in any modern consent decree. 
In addition to the ordinary prosecutorial access powers, backed up 
by civil and criminal contempt authority, this decree has two other 
aggressive features. First, it requires a full-time, on-site 
compliance team--complete with its own staff and the power to 
hire consultants--that will monitor compliance with the decree, 
report violations to the Department, and attempt to resolve 
technical disputes under the disclosure provisions. The compliance 
team will have complete access to Microsoft's source code, records, 
facilities, and personnel. Its dispute resolution responsibilities 
reflect the recognition that the market will benefit from rapid, 
consensual resolution of issues whenever possible, more so than 
litigation under the Department's contempt powers. The dispute 
resolution process complements, but does not supplant, ordinary 
methods of enforcement. Complainants may bring their inquiries 
directly to the Department if they choose.
    The decree will be in effect for five 3'ears. It also contains a 
provision under which the term may be extended by up to two 
additional years in the event that the court finds that Microsoft 
has engaged in repeated violations. Assuming that Microsoft ; will 
want to get out from under the decree's affirmative obligations and 
restrictions as soon as possible, the prospect that it might face an 
extension of the decree should provide an extra incentive to comply.
    Our practice with regard to enforcement is never influenced by 
the extent to which we ``trust'' a defendant. Rather, a 
decree must stand on its own as an enforcement vehicle to ensure 
effective relief and must contain enforcement provisions sufficient 
to address its inherent compliance issues. In this case, those 
compliance issues are complex, as the decree seeks to address 
Microsoft's interactions with firms throughout the computer 
industry. Under the circumstances, I believe the extraordinary 
nature of the decree is warranted.
    Some have criticized the decree for not going far enough. Some 
have asked why we did not continue to pursue divestiture as a 
possible remedy. We had several reasons. First, the court of appeals 
made it clear that it viewed the break-up remedy with skepticism, to 
put it mildly. The court ruled that on remand the district court 
must consider whether Microsoft is a unitary company--i.e., one 
that could not easily be broken up--and whether plaintiffs 
established a significant causal connection between Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct and its dominant position in the market for 
operating systems--a finding not reached by the prior judge.
    Second, the legal basis for the structural separation the 
Department had been seeking was undercut by the failure to sustain 
the two claims that had challenged Microsoft's right to compete 
outside its operating system monopoly by integrating new functions 
into Windows, the attempted monopolization claim and the tying 
claim. The former was dismissed, and the latter was remanded under a 
much more difficult rule-of-reason standard. The court of appeals 
ruled that, albeit with some limits, Microsoft could lawfully 
integrate new functions into the operating system and use the 
advantages flowing from its knowledge and design of the operating 
system to compete in downstream markets.
    Third, and more generally, tile relief in a section 2 case must 
have its foundation in the offending conduct. The monopoly 
maintenance finding, as modified by tile court of appeals, and 
without the ``course-of-conduct'' theory, would not in our 
view sustain a broad-ranging structural remedy that went beyond what 
was necessary to address Microsoft's unlawful responses to the 
middleware threat to its operating system monopoly. Indeed, our new 
district judge, Judge Kollar-Kotelly, stated in open court that she 
expected our proposed remedy to reflect the fact that portions of 
our case had not been sustained.
    Finally, from a practical standpoint, even assuming that we 
could have eventually secured a breakup of Microsoft--a very 
dubious assumption in light of what the

[[Page 30206]]

court of appeals and Judge Kollar-Kotelly have stated--the time 
it would have taken to continue litigating the break-up and the 
inevitable appeals could easily have delayed relief for another 
several >'ears. By taking structural relief off of the table at 
the outset of the remedy proceeding on remand, we were able to get 
favorable procedural rulings that were essential to moving quickly 
to a prompt resolution.
    More generally, a number of critics have suggested ways in which 
we could have further constrained Microsoft's conduct in the 
marketplace--either by excluding it from markets outside the 
operating system market, restricting it from integrating functions 
into its products or collaborating with others, or requiring it to 
widely share its source code as an open platform. While it is 
certainly true that restrictions and requirements of this sort might 
be desirable and advantageous to Microsoft's competitors, they would 
not necessarily be in the interest of competition and consumers 
overall; many would reduce consumer choice rather than increase it. 
Moreover, to the extent these restrictions go beyond what is needed 
to remedy proven antitrust violations, they are not legitimate 
remedial goals. The objectives of civil antitrust enforcement are 
remedial, and they focus on protecting and restoring competition for 
the benefit of consumers, not on favoring particular competitors.
    As to more complex questions regarding whether the decree has 
properly covered all the elements that will be needed for full 
relief, questions of that nature are entirely appropriate and 
hopefully will be raised and addressed in the Tunney Act process.
    But I believe the decree, by creating the opportunity for 
independent software vendors to develop competitive middleware 
products on a function-by-function basis, by giving computer 
manufacturers the flexibility to place competing middleware products 
on Microsoft's operating system, and by monopolization in that it 
commingled code for the purpose of preventing the Microsoft browser 
from being removed from the desktop. That is certainly the finding 
of the Court of Appeals.
    Now, in the process of going through my preparation for this 
hearing, I went back and looked at the Department of Justice's 
position with regard to this. Throughout the course of the case, and 
even in the contempt proceeding involving the former tying claims, 
it has always and consistently been the Department of Justice's 
contention that it did not want to force Microsoft to remove code 
from the operating system. They have said that over and over again 
in every brief that has been filed in this case.
    What the Department of Justice wanted was an appropriate 
functionality that would give consumers the choice between 
middleware functionalities. That is exactly the remedy that we have 
here and we think it is an effective remedy. We have gone beyond 
that particular aspect of this by including into our decree a 
specific provision that deals with the questions of defaults; in 
other words, the extent to which a non-Microsoft middleware product 
can take over and be invoked automatically in place of a Microsoft 
middleware product. That is something that was not in the earlier 
decrees. It is a step beyond what was included in Judge Jackson's 
order.
    We think that we have addressed the product integration aspects 
of the Microsoft monopoly maintenance claim in exactly the terms 
that the Department has always pursued with regard to that 
particular issue, and we are completely satisfied with that aspect 
of the relief.
    The Chairman. Well, I have a follow-up on that, as you probably 
expect, but my time is up and I want to yield to Senator DeWine. 
Actually, I have a follow-up on the retaliation, also, but I do 
appreciate your answer.
    Senator DeWine?
    Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. James, this case has been certainly very controversial and 
inspired a great deal of discussion regarding the effectiveness of 
the antitrust laws, especially within the high-tech industry.
    Netscape, for example, vocally opposed Microsoft during this 
litigation. Many of Netscape's complaints really were validated by 
the courts, and yet Netscape ended up losing the battle. This sort 
of result has led some to question whether our antitrust laws can be 
effective in this particular industry.
    I personally believe that the antitrust laws are essential to 
promoting competition within the industry and throughout the 
country, but I would like to hear what your views are on this 
subject. What lessons do you think this case teaches us in regard to 
that and what do we say to people like Netscape?
    Mr. James. Well, it is certainly the case that our judicial 
system very often can provide a crude tool for redressing particular 
issues quickly. I would note that this particular case was litigated 
on a very fast track and the people at the Department of Justice are 
to be really commended for pushing this case along at even the speed 
that it is has taken, considering the comparable speed of other 
cases.
    I think, however, that the case stands for an important 
proposition, and that is that the Department of Justice is up to 
meeting the challenge, that it has the tools at its disposal to 
investigate unlawful conduct, to understand and appreciate the 
implications of what complex technical matters involve, to bring the 
resources to bear in order to litigate these cases to a successful 
conclusion, and, where appropriate, to teach a settlement that is in 
the public interest.
    One of the things that I think is an important issue to note 
here is that there is certainly a time difference between litigating 
a matter of original liability and litigating a matter involving 
compliance with a term of a decree.
    We think that the enforcement powers that are involved here are 
appropriate ones. We think that enforcement by the Department of 
Justice is the appropriate way to proceed in these matters, and we 
are confident that this provides the sort of best mechanism for 
dealing with a complex matter in complex circumstances.
    Senator DeWine. One provision of the Proposed Final Judgment 
requires Microsoft to allow computer manufacturers to enable access 
to competing products. However, for a product to qualify for these 
protections, it must have had a million copies distributed in the 
United States within the previous year. This would seem to me to run 
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new 
competition.
    Why are these protections limited to larger competitors?
    Mr. James. I am actually glad you asked that question, Senator, 
because that is one of the prevailing, I think, misconceptions of 
the decree. The provisions of the decree that require Microsoft to 
allow an OEM to place a middleware product on the desktop apply 
without regard to whether or not that product has been distributed 
by one million people. That is absolute requirement.
    The million-copy distribution provision relates solely to the 
question of when Microsoft must undertake these affirmative 
obligations to create defaults, for example, for a middleware 
product to provide other types of assistance to someone who has 
developed that product.
    The fact of the matter is that this is something that requires a 
great deal of work, particularly these complex matters of setting 
defaults which is very important to the competitive circumstances 
here. And it would be very difficult to impose upon Microsoft the 
responsibility for making these alterations to the operating system 
and making them for every subsequent release of the operating system 
to be automatic in the case of any software company that just shows 
up and says I have a product that competes.
    But I want to be very clear here, Senator. Every qualifying 
middleware product, without regard to how many. copies it has 
distributed--an OEM can place that product on the desktop 
immediately, without regard to this one-million threshold.
    Quite frankly, in today's world, one million copies distributed 
is not a substantial matter. I think in the last year I might have 
gotten a million copies of AOL 5.0 in the mail. So I don't think 
that that is really a very large impediment.
    Senator DeWine. Let me ask one last question. You have mentioned 
that a number of provisions in the settlement go beyond the four 
corners of the case, but Microsoft agreed to these conditions 
anyway.
    What are they, and what is the goal of these provisions?
    Mr. James. Well, I think one of the most important ones is the 
default provision. As of the time of our original case, these 
middleware products were operated in a fairly simple way. You 
clicked on to that product, you invoked that product, and then you 
used it in whatever way was appropriate.
    In today's world, software has changed. We see what they call a 
more seamless user interface, user experience, and it is necessary 
for people to operate deeply within the operating system on an 
integrated basis. There were allegations that Microsoft overrode 
consumer choice in these default mechanisms in the case.
    With regard to each and every one of those instances alleged by 
the Justice Department, the Justice Department lost. The court found 
for Microsoft. Notwithstanding that, as a

[[Page 30207]]

matter of fencing in and improving the nature of this decree, we 
have included into this issue the subject of defaults.
    Another important area, I think, is the question of server 
interoperability, and that is a very, very important issue as we see 
going forward. I think if you go back and read the complaint in this 
case, you will find that the word ``server'' almost 
virtually never appears. There are no sort of very specific 
allegations that go to this. We thought this was an important 
alternative platform issue. We thought it was important to stretch 
for relief in this case, and we did so and got, I think, relief that 
is very effective in preserving this as people go into an 
environment of more distributed Web processing. So we think that 
that is a very powerful thing.
    I think these are two issues that the Department of Justice 
would have had a very, very difficult time sustaining in court, to 
the extent the court was inclined to limit us to the proof that we 
put forward. So I think that these are very positive manifestations 
of the settlement.
    Senator DeWine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. We are checking one thing, and I mention this to 
Senator Kohl, Senator Sessions, and Senator Cantwell, who have been 
here waiting to ask questions. We are finding out from the floor. We 
have been notified that there may have been a move, as any Senator 
has a right to do under our Senate rules, to object to committees 
meeting more than two hours after the Senate goes in session.
    We are on the farm bill and appropriations and other essential 
matters, so that I have been told that a Senator has objected, as 
every Senator has a right to do, to us continuing. As a result, 
because the Senators say they want us to concentrate on what is 
going on on the Senate floor, we have to respect the rules of the 
Senate. I do, and I am going to have to recess this hearing at this 
time.
    I am going to put into the record the statements of all those 
who have come here to testify.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:]
    [The prepared statements of Messrs. Himes, Rule, Lessig, Cooper, 
Zuck, Szulik, and Kertzman follow:]
    The Chairman. Senator Hatch and I will try to find a time we 
might reconvene this hearing, because both Senator Hatch and I feel 
this is a very important hearing.
    The record will be open for questions that might be submitted. I 
apologize to everybody. We did not anticipate this. But with 100 
Senators, every so often somebody exercises that rule. I would 
emphasize Senators have the right to exercise that rule, especially 
when we are in the last three weeks of the session. I think we are 
going to break for Christmas Day, but we are in the last three weeks 
of the session, and I think the Senator invoking the rule wants to 
make sure all Senators pay attention to the work on the floor.
    Senator Hatch. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. but Senator Hatch? Senator Hatch.
    We really are technically out of time,
    Mr. Chairman, we are out of time. Any Senator can invoke the 
two-hour rule and a Senator has done that. Fortunately, I think it 
was against the Finance Committee markup today, but we reported out 
the bill anyway right within the time constraint. That is where I 
went.
    Both Senator Leahy and I apologize to the witnesses who have put 
such an effort into being here today because this is an important 
hearing. These are important matters to both sides--to all 
sides, I should say; there are not just two sides here. These 
matters have a great bearing on just how positively impactful the 
United States is going to be in these areas.
    So I hope that we can reconvene within a relatively short period 
of time and continue this hearing because it is a very, very 
important hearing. We apologize to you that this has happened, but 
as Senator Leahy has said, a Senator can do that.
    The Chairman. Well, it is out of our hands, but I would note 
that normally I would have recessed it until tomorrow, but tomorrow 
we are using this time for an executive committee meeting of the 
Judiciary Committee to do, as we have done many times already, to 
vote out a large number of judges.
    So with that, we stand in--Jeff, I am sorry. Senator 
Sessions. Just, Mr. Chairman, a matter of procedure. I am troubled 
by what I understand to be a decision to send this transcript to the 
court as an official document from Congress in the middle of a 
litigation that is ongoing.
    I would think that anybody's statement that they gave could be 
sent to the court. Any Senator can write a letter to the court. I 
haven't studied it fully, but just as a practitioner, it troubles me 
to have a meddling--
    The Chairman. That record is open to anybody who wants to send 
anything in. Senator Hatch and I have made that decision and that 
will be the decision of the committee.
    Senator Sessions. I would be recorded as objecting.
    The Chairman. Of course, I understand.
    We stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY, CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE 
JUDICIARY HEARING

``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''

    December 12, 2001
    The proposed settlement that the Department of Justice and nine 
States have transmitted to the District Court offers a plan for the 
conclusion of this landmark antitrust litigation. It must now pass 
the legal test set out in the Tunney Act to gain court approval. 
That test is both simple and broad, and requires an evaluation of 
whether the proposed settlement is in the public interest. There is 
significant difference of opinion over how well the proposed 
settlement passes this legal test. In fact, the States participating 
in the litigation against Microsoft are evenly split, with nine 
States joining in the proposed settlement and nine non-settling 
States presenting the court with an alternative remedy. As the 
courts wrangle with the technical and complex legal issues at stake 
in the case, this committee is conducting hearings to educate 
ourselves and the public about what this proposed settlement really 
means for our high-tech industry and for all of us who use computers 
at work, at school, and at home.
    Scrutiny of the proposed settlement by this committee during the 
course of the Tunney Act proceeding is particularly important. The 
focus of our hearing today is to examine whether the proposed 
settlement is good public policy and not on the legal 
technicalities. The questions raised here and views expressed may 
help inform the court. I plan with Senator Hatch to forward to the 
court the record of this hearing for consideration as the court goes 
about the difficult task of completing the Tunney Act proceedings 
and the remedy action by the non-settling States.
    I am especially concerned that the District Court take the 
opportunity seriously to consider the remedy proposal of the non-
settling States before making her final determination on the other 
parties'' proposed settlement. The insights of the other 
participants in this complicated and hard- fought case will surely 
be valuable additions to the comments received in the Tunney Act 
proceeding and help inform the evaluation whether the settlement is 
in the public interest.
    The effects of this case extend beyond simply the choices 
available in the software marketplace. The United States has long 
been the world leader in bringing innovative solutions to software 
problems, in creating new tools and applications for use on 
computers and the Web, and in driving forward the flow of capital 
into these new and rapidly growing sectors of the economy. This 
creativity is not limited to Silicon Valley. The Burlington, 
Vermont, area ranks seventh in the nation in terms of patent 
filings. Whether the settlement proposal will help or hinder this 
process, and whether the high tech industries will play the 
important role that they should in our Nation's economy, is a larger 
issue behind the immediate impact of this proposal.
    With that in mind, I intend to ask the representatives of the 
settling parties how their resolution of this conflict will serve 
the ends that the antitrust laws require. Our courts have developed 
a test for determining the effectiveness of a remedy in a Sherman 
Act case: The remedy must end the anticompetitive practices, it must 
deprive the wrongdoer of the fruits of the wrongdoing, and it must 
ensure that the illegality does not recur. The Tunney Act also 
requires that any settlement of such a case serve the public 
interest. These are all high standards, but they are reasonable 
ones. In this case, the DC Circuit, sitting en banc and writing 
unanimously, found that Microsoft had engaged in serious 
exclusionary practices, to the detriment of their competitors and, 
thus, to all consumers. Today, we must satisfy ourselves that these 
matters have been addressed and redressed, or find out why not.

[[Page 30208]]

    I have noted my concern that the procedural posture of this case 
not jeopardize the opportunity of the non-settling States to have 
their ``day in court'' and not deprive the District Court 
of the value of their views on appropriate remedies in a timely 
fashion. In addition, I have two basic areas of concern about the 
proposed settlement. Fist, I find many of the terms of the 
settlement to be either confusingly vague, subject to manipulation, 
or both. Mr. Rule raised an important and memorable point when he 
last testified before this Committee in 1997 during the important 
series of hearings convened by Senator Hatch on competition in the 
digital age. Testifying about the first Microsoft-Justice Department 
consent decree, Mr. Rule said: ``Ambiguities in decrees are 
typically resolved against the Government. In addition, the 
Government's case must rise or fall on the language of the decree; 
the Government cannot fall back on some purported 
``spirit'' or ``purpose'' of the decree to 
justify an interpretation that is not clearly supported by the 
language.'' We take seriously such counsel, and would won-y if 
ambiguity in the proposed settlement would jeopardize its 
enforcement.
    Second, I am concerned that the enforcement mechanism described 
in the proposed decree lacks the power and the timeliness necessary 
to inspire confidence in its effectiveness. Particularly in light of 
the absence of any requirement that the decree be read in broad 
remedial terms, it is especially important that we inquire into the 
likely operation of the proposed enforcement scheme and its 
effectiveness.
    Any lawyer who has litigated cases and any business person knows 
how distracting litigation of this magnitude can be and appreciates 
the value that reaching an appropriate settlement can have not only 
for the parties but also for consumers, who are harmed by 
anticompetitive conduct, and the economy. I do not come to this 
hearing prejudging the merits of this proposed settlement but 
instead as one ready to embrace a good settlement that puts an end 
to the merry-go-round of Microsoft litigation over consent decrees. 
But the serious questions that have been raised about the scope, 
enforceability and effectiveness of this proposed settlement leave 
me concerned that, if approved in its current form, it may simply be 
an invitation for the next chapter of litigation. On this point, I 
share the concern of Judge Robert Bork, who warns, in his written 
submission, that the proposed settlement ``contains so many 
ambiguities and loopholes as to make it unenforceable, and likely to 
guarantee years of additional litigation.'' I look forward to 
hearing from the Department of Justice and other distinguished 
witnesses today on the merits of this warning.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER

BEFORE THE

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

HEARING ON ``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''

    Mr. Chairman, as you know, we conducted a series of hearings in 
this Committee in 1997 and 1998 to examine the policy implications 
of the competitive landscape of the then burgeoning high-tech 
industry, which was about to explode with the advent of the 
Internet. Those hearings focused on competition in the industry, in 
general, and, more specifically, complaints that Microsoft had been 
engaged in anti-competitive behavior that threatened competition and 
innovation to the detriment of consumers. Our goal was, and I 
believe today is, to determine how best to preserve competition and 
foster innovation in the high-technology industry.
    Although the Committee, and I, as its Chairman, was criticized 
by some, I strongly believed then, and continue to believe now, that 
in a robust economy involving new technologies, effective antitrust 
enforcement today would prevent the need for heavy-handed government 
regulation of business tomorrow. My interest in the competitive 
marketplace in the high-technology industry was animated by my 
strong opposition to regulation of the industry, whether by the 
government, or by one or few companies. As we may remember, the 
hearings before the Judiciary Committee developed an extensive 
record of Microsoft's conduct, and evidenced various efforts by the 
company to maintain and extend its operating system monopoly. Those 
findings, I would note, were reaffirmed by a unanimous, and 
ideologically diverse Court of Appeals. The Microsoft case--and 
its ultimate resolution--present one of the most important 
developments in antitrust law in recent memory.
    As I have emphasized before, having a monopoly is not illegal 
under our laws. In fact, in a successful capitalist system, striving 
to be one should be encouraged. However, anticompetitive conduct 
intended to maintain or extend this monopoly would harm competition 
and could violate our laws. I believe no one would disagree that the 
DC Circuit's decision reaffirmed the fundamental principle that a 
monopolist--even a monopolist in a high-tech industry like 
software--must compete on the merits to maintain its monopoly.
    Which brings us to today's hearing. We are here to examine the 
policy implications of the proposed settlement in the government's 
antitrust litigation against Microsoft.
    Mr. Chairman, rather than closing the book on the Microsoft 
inquiry, the proposed settlement appears to be only the end of the 
latest chapter. The settling parties are currently in the middle of 
the so-called Tunney Act process before the court. And, the non-
settling parties have chosen to further litigate this matter and 
last week filed their own proposed settlement. This has been a 
complex case with significant consequences for Microsoft, high-tech 
entrepreneurs and the American public. The proposed settlement 
between Microsoft and the Justice Department and nine of the 
plaintiff State attorneys general is highly technical. We have all 
been studying it, and its impact, with great interest. Each of us 
has heard from some, including some of our witnesses here today, 
that the agreement contains much that is very good.
    Not surprisingly, we have also heard and read much criticism of 
the settlement. These are complex issues, and I would hope today's 
hearing will illuminate the many questions we have.
    I should note that about two weeks ago, I sent a set of detailed 
and extensive questions about the scope, interpretation, and 
intended effects of the proposed settlement to the Justice 
Department, seeking further information. First, I want to commend 
the Department for getting the responses to me promptly.
    We received them yesterday. I think the questions, which were 
made public, and the Department's responses could be helpful to each 
member in forming an independent and fair analysis of the proposed 
settlement.
    To that end, and for the benefit of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, 
I would like to make both the questions and the Department's answers 
part of the record for this hearing, if you wouldn't have any 
objections.
    As I noted in my November 29 letter to the Department, I have 
kept an open mind regarding this settlement, and continue to do so. 
I have had questions regarding the practical enforceability of the 
proposed settlement and whether it will effectively remedy the 
unlawful practices identified by the DC Circuit, and restore 
competition in the software market.
    I am also cognizant of both the limitation of the claims 
contained in the original Justice Department complaint by the DC 
Circuit, as well as the standards for enforcement under settled 
antitrust law. I believe that further information regarding 
precisely how the proposed settlement will be interpreted, given DC 
Circuit case law, is necessary to any full and objective analysis of 
the remedies proposed therein. I hope that this hearing will result 
in the development of such information, that would supplement the 
questions I put forth to the Department.
    Mr. Chairman, one important and critical policy issue that I 
would hope we can address today, and that I would like all of our 
witness to consider as they wait to be empaneled so that they can 
discuss, is the difficult issue of the temporal relation of 
antitrust enforcement in new high-technology markets.
    It cannot be overemphasized that timing is a critical issue in 
examining conduct in the so-called ``new economy.'' 
Indeed, the most significant lesson the Microsoft case has taught us 
is this fact. The DC Circuit found this issue noteworthy enough to 
discuss in the first few pages of its opinion. And I will quote from 
the unanimous court:
    ``[w]hat is somewhat problematic.., is that just over six 
years have passed since Microsoft engaged in the first conduct 
plaintiffs allege to be anticompetitive. As the record in this case 
indicates, six years seems like an eternity in the computer 
industry. By the time a court can assess liability, firms, products, 
and the marketplace are likely to have changed dramatically. This, 
in turn, threatens enormous practical difficulties for courts 
considering the appropriate measure of relief in equitable 
enforcement actions ....
    [I]nnovation to a large degree has already rendered the 
anticompetitive conduct obsolete (although by no means 
harmless).''
    This issue is one that is relevant for this Committee to 
consider as a larger policy

[[Page 30209]]

matter, as well as how it relates to this case and the proposed 
settlement we are examining today. Again, I want to thank you Mr. 
Chairman for continuing the Committee's important role in high-
technology policy matters, and I look forward to hearing from our 
witnesses today.
    news from
    United States Senator
    Democrat of Wisconsin
    Hart Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    (202) 224-5653
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
    December 12, 2001
    Contact: Lynn Becker or Jessica Carlin
    Phone: (202) 224-5653 Statement of Senator Herb Kohl
    The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future
    This is a pivotal time for competition in the high tech sector 
of our economy. After spending more than three years pursuing its 
groundbreaking antitrust case against Microsoft--a case that is 
likely to rewrite the rules for competiti6n in the high tech 
industry for years to come--the government has announced a 
settlement--But the crucial question remains--will this 
settlement break Microsoft's stranglehold over the computer software 
industry and restore competition in this vital sector of the 
economy?
    Frankly, I have serious doubts that it will. An independent 
federal court--both the teal court and the Court of Appeals in 
fact--found that Microsoft broke the law and that its 
violations should be fixed. This antitrust case was as big as they 
come. Microsoft crushed a competitor, illegally tried to maintain 
its monopoly, and stifled innovation in this market. Now, after all 
these years of litigation, of charges and counter-charges, this 
settlement leaves us wondering--did we really accomplish 
anything? Or, in the words of the old song, is that all there is? 
Does this settlement obey the Supreme Court mandate that it must 
deny the antitrust violator ``the fruits'' of its illegal 
conduct?
    It seems to many--including nine of the states that joined 
the federal government in suing Microsoft--that this settlement 
agreement simply is not strong enough to do the job--to restore 
competition to the computer software industry. It contains so many 
loopholes, qualifications and exceptions that many worry that 
Microsoft will be easily able to evade its provisions. Let me give 
just one example--the. requirement that Microsoft must allow 
computer users to install competing software products only applies 
with respect to software that has had one million copies distributed 
in the last year. New software competitors just are not protected by 
this provision.
    Today, for the vast majority of computer users, the first thing 
they see when they turn on their machine is the now familiar 
Microsoft logo, placed on the Microsoft start menu. And all of their 
computer operations take place through the filter of Microsoft's 
Windows operating system. Microsoft's control over the market is so 
strong that today more than 95% of all personal computers run on the 
Windows operating system, a market share high enough to constitute a 
monopoly under antitrust law. Its share of the Internet browsing 
market is now over 85%. It reported a profit margin of 25% in the 
most recent quarter, a very high rate of return in challenging 
economic times.
    Microsoft has the power to dictate terms to manufacturers who 
wish to gain access to the Windows operating system and the ability 
to leverage its dominance into other forms of computer software. And 
Microsoft has never been shy about using its market power. Are we 
really confident that, in five years, this settlement will have had 
any appreciable impact on these facts of life in the computer 
industry?
    We today stand on the threshold of writing the rules for 
competition in the distal age. We've got two options. One option 
involves one dominant company controlling the computer desktop, 
facing minor restraints that expire in five years, but acting as a 
gatekeeper to 95% of all personal computer users. The other model is 
the flowering of innovation and new products that resulted from the 
break-up of the AT&T telephone monopoly nearly twenty years ago. 
From cell phones to faxes, from long distance price wars to the 
development of the Internet itself, the end of the telephone 
monopoly brought an explosion of new technologies and services that 
benefit millions of consumers every day. We should insist on nothing 
less in this case.
    In sum, any settlement in this case should make the market for 
computer software at least as competitive as the market for computer 
hardware is today. While there's nothing wrong with settling, we 
should insist on a settlement that has an immediate, substantial, 
and permanent impact on restoring competition in this industry.

OPENING REMARKS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

ON

``THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK TO THE FUTURE''

    December 12, 2001
    Ever since the Department of Justice and Microsoft announced, in 
early November, their plan to settle the long-running antitrust 
litigation, a lot of people have weighed in with their concerns.
    This hearing is important because it provides those of us in 
Congress with the first real opportunity to examine the terms of the 
proposed Microsoft settlement, and to hear from all sides of this 
issue. I think it is important that everyone understands what this 
settlement means, both in terms of the specific details, and in the 
longer term ramifications, before they level any criticism.
    It's also important to note that the proceeding is still 
ongoing, and that this matter is still before the judge in a 
``Tunney Act proceeding.'' So, I hope today's hearing will 
shed valuable light on what this settlement means for all of us in 
an objective and educational way.
    Like me, most of our constituents have owned and used personal 
computers for a long time, and most who do own computers utilize 
Microsoft Windows PC operating systems. So we are very familiar with 
and have gotten quite used to Microsoft products and services. And 
it is our constituents who will bear the long-term impact of this 
settlement, whatever results that will mean in the market. I hope we 
keep that in mind as we scrutinize the terms agreed upon between the 
Justice Department, state attorneys general and Microsoft.
    I think one of the difficulties that this settlement attempted 
to resolve is to try to address problems that arose in the past 
while, at the same time, anticipate and regulate potential anti- 
competitive conduct in the future.
    In a technology industry that is innovative and constantly 
evolving, tiffs is obviously a challenge, and I'm sure there are 
issues that the settlement could not or did not anticipate. At this 
hearing, I'd like to learn what some of these missing issues are.
    Another issue of interest to me involves the Internet market. 
With the launch of Windows XP--Microsoft's newest operating 
system--the issues raised by the original Justice Department 
complaint remain salient in determining the scope of the marketplace 
for web-based services.
    Some opponents of Microsoft throughout the litigation, and even 
now with this settlement, have contended that Microsoft intends to 
leverage its dominance in the PC marketplace to establish itself as 
the player in web-based services. It is unclear to me just how much 
of those concerns will be resolved by this settlement, so I look 
forward to hearing Microsoft's response.
    Finally, I am interested in knowing more about the innovative 
enforcement mechanism included in the settlement decree. I 
understand that this is probably the most stringent enforcement 
requirement ever imposed by the Justice Department in an antitrust 
matter. But I don't know how workable it will be for the Justice 
Department to remain so intimately involved over the next five years 
given how fast the technology industry changes. Five years is an 
eternity in the high-tech world. In negotiating this settlement, I 
hope that the Department relied on the many lessons it learned from 
its experience with the AT&T breakup and the long-term 
monitoring that that case involved.
    Ultimately, we must find a way to promote competition and choice 
in the technology marketplace while continuing to encourage 
investment and innovation by this dynamic industry. Reasonable 
people can disagree about how we ought to get there.
    I am grateful that today's hearing presents us with an 
opportunity to hear from knowledgeable witnesses on both sides of 
this dispute.
    Thank you.
preventing retaliation by Microsoft against those who choose to 
develop or use competing middleware products, fully addresses the 
legitimate public goals of stopping Microsoft's unlawful conduct and 
restoring competition lost on its account.
    Mr. Chairman, a vigorously competitive computer software 
industry is vital to our economy, and the Department is committed to 
ensuring that it remains competitive. I hope that my testimony has 
helped members of the Committee more fully understand why

[[Page 30210]]

the Department is completely satisfied that the proposed consent 
decree now before the district court will provide a sufficient and 
effective remedy for the anticompetitive conduct in which Microsoft 
has been found to have engaged in violation of the Sherman Act. I 
would be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the 
Committee may have.

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

120 B ROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10271

Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General
(212) 416-8050

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING ON THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: 
A LOOK TO THE FUTURE

TESTIMONY OF JAY L. HIMES, CHIEF, ANTITRUST BUREAU OF THE NEW YORK 
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

Washington, DC
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
    Chairman Leahy and distinguished Members of this Committee, 
thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the 
important issues relating to the settlement of the case against 
Microsoft, brought by the Antitrust Division of the United States 
Department of Justice, 18 States and the District of Columbia. New 
York is one of the lead States in this lawsuit, and we have had a 
central role in the matter going back to the investigation that led 
to the filing of the case.
    As the members of the Committee know, on Friday, November 2, 
2001, the DOJ and Microsoft reached a proposed settlement of the 
lawsuit, which was then publicly announced. After further 
negotiations between Microsoft and the States, a revised settlement 
was reached on Tuesday, November 6, 2001. New York--together 
with the States of Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin--agreed to the 
revised settlement. The remaining State plaintiffs--California, 
Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Utah, 
West Virginia and the District of Columbia--are seeking a 
judicially ordered remedy, as is their right.
    I, together with an Assistant Attorney General from the State of 
Ohio, were the principal representatives of the States in the 
lengthy negotiations that led to the proposed final judgment 
embodying the settlement. Therefore, I believe that we in New York 
see the Microsoft settlement from a vantage point that others who 
were not in the negotiating room may lack. I will do my best to try 
to share our observations with the Committee. I will begin by 
presenting an overview of the lawsuit and the settlement reached. 
After that, I will address in more detail several of the central 
features of the settlement. Then, I wish to turn to the settlement 
process itself, particularly insofar as it bears on criticism of the 
proposed final judgment.

1. Overview of the Case and the Settlement

    In May 1998, New York, 18 other States and the District of 
Columbia began a lawsuit against Microsoft, alleging violations of 
federal and state antitrust laws.\1\ The States' case was similar to 
an antitrust case commenced that same day by DOJ, and the two cases 
proceeded on a consolidated basis. In summary, the litigation 
against Microsoft charged that the company unlawfully restrained 
trade and denied consumers choice by: (1) monopolizing the market 
for personal computer (``PC'') operating systems; (2) 
bundling (or ``tying'') Internet 
Explorer--Microsoft's web browser--into the Windows 
operating system used on most PCs; (3) entering into arrangements 
with various industry members that excluded competitive software; 
and (4) attempting to monopolize the market for web browsers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subsequently, one State (South Carolina) dropped out, 
and another (New Mexico) settled earlier this year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After a lengthy trial, the District Court upheld the 
governments' claims that Microsoft had unlawfully: (1) maintained a 
monopoly in the PC operating system market; (2) tied Internet 
Explorer to its Windows operating system monopoly; and (3) attempted 
to monopolize the browser market. The District Court issued a final 
judgment breaking up Microsoft into two separate businesses, and 
ordering certain conduct remedies intended to govern Microsoft's 
business activities pending completion of the break-up. These 
remedies were stayed while Microsoft appealed.
    In June of this year, the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit issued its decision on appeal. United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001). The Court of Appeals 
broadly upheld the lower court's monopolization maintenance ruling, 
although it rejected a few of the acts of monopolization found by 
the District Court including the Court's determination that 
Microsoft's overall course of conduct itself amounted to monopoly 
maintenance. On the tying claim, the Court of Appeals reversed the 
lower court's holding of an antitrust violation, and ordered a new 
trial under the rule of reason a--standard more favorable to 
Microsoft than the standard previously used by the trial court. In 
view of these rulings, the Circuit Court vacated the final judgment, 
including the break-up provisions. Finally, the Court of Appeals 
disqualified the trial judge from hearing further proceedings. 
Thereafter, the Court of Appeals denied a rehearing petition by 
Microsoft, and the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by 
Microsoft concerning the Court of Appeals' disqualification ruling.
    The Court of Appeals returned the case to the District Court in 
late August of this year. At that point, a new judge--Hon. 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly--was assigned. Shortly after that, DOJ 
and the States announced their intention, in the forthcoming 
proceedings before the District Court, to refrain from seeking 
another break up order--and to focus instead on conduct 
remedies modeled on those included in the earlier District Court 
judgment. DOJ and the States also announced that the{time} , would 
not re-try the tying claim under the rule of reason test that the 
Court of Appeals had adopted. These decisions by the government 
enforcers were made in an effort to jump-start the process of 
promptly obtaining a strong and effective remedy for Microsoft's 
anticompetitive conduct, as upheld by the Court of Appeals' 
decision.
    The parties appeared before Judge Kollar-Kotelly for the first 
time at a conference held on September 28, 2001. The Court directed 
the parties to begin a settlement negotiation and mediation process, 
which would end on November 2. Specifically, the Court noted that 
``I expect [the parties] to engage in settlement discussions 
seven days a week around the clock in order to see if they can 
resolve this case.'' (Transcript of September 28, 2001 
proceedings, page 5) The Court also adopted a detailed schedule 
governing the proceedings leading to a heating on remedies, which 
the Court tentatively set for March 2002, if no settlement could be 
reached.
    The settlement process that the District Court thus set in 
motion resulted in a proposed final judgment agreed to by Microsoft, 
DOJ and nine of the plaintiff States. The overarching objective of 
this settlement is to increase the choices available to consumers 
(including business users) who seek to buy PCs by promoting 
competition in the computer and computer software industries. More 
specifically (and as I will explain further below), the proposed 
final judgment includes the following means to increase consumer 
choice and industry competition:
    ï¿½ Microsoft will be prohibited from using various 
forms of conduct to punish or discourage industry participants from 
developing and offering products that compete or could compete with 
the Windows operating system, or with Microsoft software running on 
Windows.
    ï¿½ Microsoft will be prohibited from restricting the 
ability of computer manufacturers to make significant changes to 
Windows, thereby encouraging manufacturers to offer consumers more 
choice in the features included in PCs available for purchase.
    ï¿½ Microsoft will be required to disclose significant 
technical information that will help industry participants to 
develop and offer products that work well with Windows, and, in this 
way, potentially aid in the development of products that will 
compete with Windows itself.
    ï¿½ Microsoft will be subject to on-site scrutiny by a 
specially selected three-person committee, charged with 
responsibility to assist in enforcing Microsoft's obligations under 
the settlement, and to help resolve complaints and inquiries that 
arise by virtue of the settlement.
    New York decided to settle the Microsoft case because we believe 
that the deal hammered out over the many weeks of negotiations will 
generate a more competitive marketplace for consumers and businesses 
throughout the country, and, indeed, throughout the world. In 
summary, the settlement that the parties have submitted to the 
District Court for approval will accomplish the following:

2. Empowering Computer Manufacturers to Offer Choices to Consumers

    First, the proposed final judgment will empower computer 
manufacturers--the ``OEMs'' to--offer products 
that give consumers choice. Under the settlement,

[[Page 30211]]

OEMs have the opportunity to add competing middleware to the Windows 
operating system in place of middleware included by Microsoft. 
(Section III, paragraphs C and H) \2\ Middleware here refers 
not only to software like the Netscape browser, one of the subjects 
of the liability trial, but also to other important PC functions, 
such as email, instant messaging, or the media players that enable 
consumers to receive audio and visual content from the Internet. 
(Section VI, paragraphs K and M) \3\ Middleware is important, 
in the context of this case, because it may help break down barriers 
that protect Microsoft's Windows monopoly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Parenthetical references are to Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment attached to the Stipulation, dated November 6, 2001(the 
``November 6 Stipulation''), in United States v. Microsoft 
Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK)(D.DC), and State of New 
York v. Microsoft Corp., Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)(D.DC) 
(together ``Microsoft'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The government negotiators insisted on, and eventually obtained, 
a broad definition of middleware so that the proposed decree covers 
both existing middleware and middleware not currently in existence, 
but which Microsoft and its competitors may develop during the term 
of the decree. The reason for our pressing a broad definition is 
plain enough: the broader the definition of middleware, the more 
software covered by the settlement, and the greater the opportunity 
for a software product to develop in a fashion that challenges the 
Windows monopoly.
    Under the proposed decree, OEMs will have the ability to 
customize the PC's that they offer. They may, for example, add icons 
launching both competing middleware--and products that use 
competing middleware--to the Windows desktop or Start menu, and 
to other places in the Windows operating system. OEMs also will have 
the ability to suppress the existence of the competing middleware 
that Microsoft included in the Windows operating system licensed to 
the OEM. Microsoft itself will have to redesign Windows to the 
extent needed to permit this sort of substitution of middleware, and 
to ensure that the OEMs' customization of Windows is honored. 
(Section III, paragraphs C and H) \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For ease of exposition, I refer in this testimony to 
``middleware'' as a generic term. In the proposed final 
judgment itself, there are four related middleware definitions, 
which are associated with various substantive provisions in the 
decree. (See Section VI, paragraphs J, K, M, N; Section IV(A) of the 
Competitive Impact Statement, dated November 15, 2001, filed in 
Microsoft.)
    \4\ PC users themselves will have a similar ability to 
customize Windows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The options available to OEMs under the settlement mean that the 
Windows desktop is up for sale. Companies offering a package of 
features that includes middleware, and middleware developers 
themselves, who desire to put their product into the hands of 
consumers can go to OEMs and buy a part of the real estate that the 
Windows desk top represents. This opportunity for additional revenue 
should further empower OEMs to develop competing computer products 
that offer choice to consumers.
    The OEMs' ability to offer consumers competing middleware is 
backed up by a broad provision that prohibits Microsoft from 
``retaliating'' against OEMs for any decision to install 
competing middleware (as well as any operating system that competes 
with Windows). (Section III, paragraph A) This provision forbids 
Microsoft from altering any of its commercial relations with an OEM, 
or from denying an OEM a wide array of product support or 
promotional benefits, based on the OEM's efforts to offer 
competitive alternatives. (Section VI, paragraph C)
    Then, to back up the non-retaliation provision, Microsoft also 
is required to license Windows to its 20 largest OEMs (who comprise 
roughly 70% of new PC sales) under uniform, non-discriminatory 
terms. (Section III, paragraph B) Microsoft also is prohibited from 
terminating any of its 20 largest OEMs for Windows licensing 
violations without first giving the OEM notice and an opportunity to 
cure the alleged violation. (Section III, paragraph A)

3. Empowering Software Developers and Others to Offer Competing 
Middleware

    Second, the proposed final judgment seeks to encourage 
independent software developers--referred to as 
``ISVs''--to write competing middleware. This is 
accomplished by forbidding Microsoft from retaliating against any 
ISV based on the ISV's efforts to introduce competing middleware or 
a competing operating system into the market. (Section III, 
paragraph F) The literally thousands of ISVs in the industry are 
protected by this additional non-retaliation provision, and they are 
protected whether or not they have an on-going business relationship 
with Microsoft.
    ISVs, and many other industry participants, are further 
protected by provisions that prohibit Microsoft from entering into 
exclusive dealing arrangements relating to middleware or operating 
systems. Exclusive dealing arrangements are a device that Microsoft 
used to deny competitors access to the distribution lines needed to 
enable their products to gain acceptance in the marketplace. 
(Section III, paragraphs F, G) We have effectively closed off that 
practice to Microsoft.

4. Requiring Microsoft to Disclose Information to Facilitate 
Interoperation

    Third, the proposed final judgment requires Microsoft to provide 
the technical information--``interfaces'' and 
``protocols''--that industry members need to enable 
competing middleware to work well with Windows. Middleware uses 
functions of the Windows operating system through connections or 
``hooks'' called ``applications programming 
interfaces''--``APIs'' for short. Microsoft will 
now be required to disclose the APIs that its own middleware uses to 
interoperate with Windows, and to provide technical documents 
relating to those APIs, so that ISVs who wish to develop competing 
middleware will have the information needed to make their products 
work well with Windows. (Section III, paragraph D)
    This is, again, a place where the broad definition of 
middleware, covering both existing and yet to be developed products, 
matters. (Section VI, paragraph J) The broader the definition, the 
greater the number of APIs that Microsoft must disclose and 
document. The greater the technical information made available, the 
greater the likelihood that industry participants will be able to 
develop competing middleware that works well on Windows.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Strictly speaking, if Microsoft refrains from 
separately distributing a particular middleware product included in 
Windows, it need not disclose the APIs used by that middleware 
product. But powerful business considerations militate against 
Microsoft adopting a strategy in which only purchasers of new PCs, 
or of box-packaged versions of Windows, receive a middleware product 
offered by Microsoft. Under such a strategy, Microsoft would be 
unable to supply the middleware product to any of the millions of 
Windows users worldwide who comprise its installed user base. 
Microsoft would thereby put itself at a competitive disadvantage as 
suppliers of competing middleware offered attractive product 
features to the installed base of Windows users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed decree goes beyond requiring disclosure of APIs 
between Windows and Microsoft middleware. More and more, at-home 
consumers and computer users in the workplace can obtain 
functionality that they need from either the Internet or from 
network servers operating in a business setting. This trend means 
that computer applications running on servers may be an emerging 
location for developing middleware that could challenge the Windows 
monopoly at the PC level. Thus, the settlement is designed to 
prevent Microsoft from using Windows to gain competitive advantages 
in the way that PCs talk to servers. This is accomplished by 
requiring Microsoft to disclose, via a licensing mechanism, what are 
called ``protocols'' used to enable PCs and servers to 
communicate with each other. (Section III, paragraph E)
    This particular provision--sometimes referred to as the 
``client/server interoperability'' section--was 
especially important to the States. The provision included in the 
November 2 version of the final judgment between the DOJ and 
Microsoft did not seem to us in New York to go quite as far as we 
felt it needed to go. As a result, this was a place that we and 
other States focused on in the negotiations leading to the revised 
settlement signed on November 6. The changes that resulted did not 
involve many words, but we believe that they enhanced Microsoft's 
disclosure obligations in this critical area.

5. The Enforcement Mechanism

    The subject matter of the Microsoft lawsuit is complex, and so 
too are many parts of the remedy embodied in the final judgment. 
This complexity creates the potential for good faith disagreement, 
as well as for intentional evasion. For this reason, from the outset 
of the settlement negotiations, New York held to the view that 
enforcement provisions going beyond those typically found in 
antitrust decrees would be needed here. We worked closely with DOJ 
to achieve this objective. What you find in the proposed final 
judgment is an enforcement mechanism that we believe is 
unprecedented in any antitrust case.
    The proposed consent decree expressly recognizes the 
``exclusive responsibility'' of the United States DOJ and 
the antitrust officials of the settling States to enforce the final 
judgment against Microsoft. (Section IV, paragraph A (1)) To assist 
this federal and state enforcement and compliance effort, the 
proposed decree will create a three person body, the 
``Technical Committee'' or ``TC.'' (Section IV, 
paragraph B) The TC is

[[Page 30212]]

empowered, among other things: (1) to interview any Microsoft 
personnel; (2) to obtain copies of any Microsoft 
documents--including Microsoft's source code--and access 
to any Microsoft systems, equipment and physical facilities; and (3) 
to require Microsoft to provide compilations of documents, data and 
other information, and to prepare reports for the TC. (Section IV, 
paragraph B(8)(b), (c)) The TC itself is authorized to hire staff 
and consultants to carry out its responsibilities. (Section IV, 
paragraph B(8)(h)) Microsoft also is required to provide permanent 
office space and office support facilities for the TC at its 
Redmond, Washington campus. (Section IV, paragraph B(7))
    In other words, for the five year term of the decree, the TC 
will be the on-site eyes and ears of the government enforcers. The 
TC and government enforcers may communicate with each other as often 
as they need to, and the TC may obtain advice or assistance from the 
enforcers on any matter within the TC's purview. In addition, the TC 
is subject to specific reporting requirements--every six 
months, or immediately if the TC finds any violation of the decree. 
(Section IV, paragraph B(8)(e), (f)) The TC further will be expected 
to field and promptly resolve complaints and inquiries from industry 
members, or from government enforcers themselves. (Section IV, 
paragraph B(8)(d), paragraph D)
    All of this will be paid for by Microsoft, subject to possible 
review by federal and state officials, or the Court. To discourage 
Microsoft from mounting dubious court challenges to the TC's costs 
and expenses, the proposed decree authorizes the TC to recover its 
litigation expenses, including attorneys' fees, unless the Court 
expressly finds that the TC's opposition was ``without 
substantial justification.'' (Section IV, paragraph B(8)(i))
    These enforcement provisions are probably the strongest ever 
crafted in an antitrust case. Federal and state enforcers will have 
at their disposal their regular enforcement powers, which may be 
invoked at any time independent of anything that the TC may do. 
(Section IV, paragraph A(2), (4)) Meanwhile, the TC will augment 
these traditional powers in significant respects. In addition, 
Microsoft itself is required to appoint an internal compliance 
officer to assist in assuring discharge of the company's obligations 
under the settlement. (Section IV, paragraph C)
    I am mindful that concern has been expressed regarding the 
enforcement provision that ``[n]o work product, findings or 
recommendations of the TC may be admitted in any enforcement 
proceeding before the Court. . . . ``(Section IV, 
paragraph D(4)(d)) But the impact of this provision should not be 
great. As noted, 15 the TC may report to the government enforcers, 
who may use the TC's work to seek from Microsoft a consensual 
resolution of, for example, any non-compliant conduct, to initiate 
(and inevitably shortcut) enforcement-looking activity, to pursue 
leads, and for other enforcement purposes. Moreover, the TC's work 
product, once known, should be readily susceptible of prompt 
replication by enforcement officials for use in judicial 
proceedings.

6. The Settlement Process

    As the very fact of these hearings attests, the proposed 
settlement of the Microsoft case is a subject of significant public 
interest and debate. For years, many have asserted that the case 
itself should never have been filed to begin with. For these 
individuals, the government should be satisfied to get any remedy at 
all. We in New York profoundly disagree with this view. As the 
liability trial and appeal confirmed, this case was properly brought 
to remedy serious anticompetitive activity by Microsoft. The trial 
and appellate proceedings further confirmed that the antitrust laws 
are alive and well in technological industries, just as they are in 
other parts of our nation's economy. Accordingly, the public is 
entitled to a strong, effective remedy.
    In this regard, however, some have criticized the settlement for 
not going far enough, or for having exceptions and limitations. We 
reject this view as well.
    In announcing the decision by New York and eight other States to 
settle the case, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer noted that 
``a settlement is never perfect.'' A settlement is an 
agreed-upon resolution of competing positions and objectives. Do I 
wish that the DOJ and the States had gotten more? Of course I do. Do 
our counterparts on the Microsoft side wish that they had given up 
less? There is no doubt about the answer. So, asking these questions 
does not take us very far. Settlement necessarily means compromise. 
It is in the nature of the beast.
    This particular settlement is the product of roughly five weeks 
of consuming negotiations, much of which took place under the 
guidance of two experienced mediators. I am unaware of any 
calculation of the total person-hours consumed by this effort. 
Certainly it was in the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of 
hours. The process required the two sides to explore, both 
internally and in face-to-face negotiations, a host of factors that 
bear on terms of the settlement eventually reached, such as: (1) the 
competitive consequences of varying courses of action; (2) the 
design, engineering and practical implications and limitations of 
various remedy approaches, as well as their impact on innovation 
incentives; (3) the issues actually framed for trial in the 
liability phase of the case and their resolution by the Court of 
Appeals; (4) the law governing remedies for the monopoly maintenance 
violation that the Court of Appeals upheld, which the District Court 
would be called on to apply in the absence of a settlement; and (5) 
the resources, effort and time otherwise needed to resolve the sharp 
factual disputes that would be presented in a full-blown remedies 
hearing. New York and the other States, as well as the DOJ, were 
aided in this process by experienced staff and retained experts.
    In the final analysis, the DO J, New York and the other settling 
States concluded that the benefits to consumers and to the 
competitive process that are likely to result from the negotiated 
settlement reached here outweigh the uncertain remedy that a 
contested remedies proceeding might bring. In assessing the 
soundness of that conclusion, the members of the Committee should 
recall that the settlement's critics have a luxury that those of us 
who settled did not have: they have the settlement floor created by 
the final judgment that we have offered. Absent this settlement, 
however, a judicial remedies hearing had not simply potential 
rewards, but significant risks as well.
    During the September 28 court conference, the District Court 
expressed its views regarding the appropriate scope of the conduct 
remedies that might emerge from a judicial hearing on relief. Among 
other things, the District Court stated the following:
    The Supreme Court long ago stated that it's entirely appropriate 
for a district court to order a remedy which goes beyond a simple 
prescription against the precise conduct previously pursued. 
. . . The Supreme Court has vested this court with large 
discretion to fashion appropriate restraints both to avoid a 
recurrence of the violation and to eliminate its consequences. Now, 
case law in the antitrust field establishes that the exercise of 
discretion necessitates choosing from a range of alternatives.
    So the government's first and most obvious task is going to be 
to determine which portions of the former judgment remain 
appropriate in light of the appellate court's ruling and which 
portions are unsupported following the appellate court's narrowing 
of liability.
    Now, the scope of any proposed remedy must be carefully crafted 
so as to ensure that the enjoining conduct falls within the number 
[sic, penumbra] of behavior which was found to be anticompetitive. 
The government will also have to be cautiously attentive to the 
efficacy of every element of the proposed relief.
    (Transcript of September 28, 2001 proceedings, pages 9, 8)
    These remarks highlight risks that both sides confronted if the 
decision were made to press for a court-ordered remedy. Several 
concrete examples, from the settlement actually reached, will 
further drive home this point.
    ï¿½ Microsoft's API disclosure obligations, and its 
obligations to permit OEMs to customize the Windows desktop and 
operating system more generally, revolve around a series of related 
middleware definitions that the parties agreed to. Absent a 
settlement, there could no assurance that 19 the courts would adopt 
middleware definitions as broad as those that DOJ and the settling 
States negotiated.
    The liability trial in the case centered on Microsoft's conduct 
directed to efforts by Netscape and Sun to get Netscape's web 
browser and Sun's Java technologies installed on individual PCs. 
Plaintiffs' theory of the case which the trial and appellate courts 
upheld was that these forms of middleware could, if sufficiently 
pervasive at the PC level, erode the applications barrier to entry 
that protects Microsoft's Windows monopoly. Microsoft therefore set 
out to exclude this middleware from PCs. In the settlement 
negotiations leading to the client/server interoperability 
provision, the government negotiators argued that applications 
running at the server level can be analogous to middleware running 
at the PC level. On this

[[Page 30213]]

approach, middleware developed at the server level could also break 
down the applications barrier to entry into the PC operating system 
market. Therefore, the remedy in this case requires Microsoft to 
disclose ways that PCs running Windows talk to servers running 
Microsoft software. Absent a settlement, however, there could be no 
assurance that the courts would order disclosure of this PC/server 
line of communications. Microsoft resisted this provision 20 during 
the settlement negotiations, and would similarly have opposed it at 
a remedies hearing.
    Finally, as i noted above, there does not seem to be any 
antitrust precedent for an enforcement mechanism that puts a monitor 
on site, with full access to the defendant's documents, employees, 
systems and physical facilities--all at the defendant's 
expense. Absent a settlement, Microsoft would have vigorously 
opposed such a far-reaching enforcement regime, and there plainly 
could be no assurance that the courts would have ordered comparable 
relief.
    As these examples reflect, I believe that the proposed final 
judgment compares favorably to--and in some respects may well 
exceed--the remedy that might have emerged from a judicial 
hearing.
    The existence of a settlement has also accelerated the point in 
time at which a remedy will begin to take effect. Microsoft has 
agreed to begin complying with the proposed final judgment starting 
on December 16, 200I. (November 6 Stipulation, paragraph 2) Assuming 
further that the District Court approves the proposed final judgment 
in Tunney Act proceedings in early 2002, there will be a remedy in 
place a year or more before the trial and appellate level 
proceedings, needed to resolve the appropriate remedy in the absence 
of a settlement, would be concluded. In this rapidly changing sector 
of the industry, the timeliness of a remedy is an important 
consideration.

6. Conclusion

    In sum, the settlement in the Microsoft case promotes 
competition and consumer choice. It is proportionate to the monopoly 
maintenance violations that the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit sustained. The settlement represents a fair and 
reasonable vindication of the public interest in assuring the free 
and open competition that our nation's antitrust laws guarantee.
    Microsoft is reported recently to have issued a companywide 
email stating its commitment to making the settlement ``a 
success'' and to ``ensuring that everyone at Microsoft 
complies fully with the terms'' of the decree. D. Ian Hopper, 
Associated Press State & Local Wire (Nov. 30, 2001). We expect 
nothing less, and we intend to see to it that Microsoft honors that 
commitment. New York is one of the members of the States' 
enforcement committee, created under the proposed decree. Our State 
Antitrust Bureau will be vigilant in monitoring Microsoft's 
discharge of its obligations, and we look forward to working closely 
with the DOJ to make sure that the settlement is, indeed, a success. 
The American public is entitled to nothing less.

Statement of Charles F. (Rick) Rule, Fried Frank Harris Shriver & 
Jacobson, Counsel for Microsoft Corporation

Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, December 
12, 2001

    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. It is a 
pleasure to appear before you today on behalf of Microsoft 
Corporation to discuss the proposed consent decree or Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment (the ``PFJ'') to which the U.S. 
Department of Justice and nine of the plaintiff states have agreed. 
As this committee is aware, I am counsel to Microsoft in the case 
and was one of the principal representatives for the company in the 
negotiations that led to the proposed consent decree.
    The PFJ was signed on November 6th after more than a month of 
intense, around-the-clock negotiations with the Department and 
representatives of all the plaintiff states. The decree is currently 
subject to a public interest review by Judge Kollar-Kotelly under 
the Tunney Act.\1\ Because we are currently in the midst of that 
review and because nine states and the District of Columbia have 
chosen to continue the litigation, I must be somewhat circumspect in 
my remarks. However, what I can--indeed, must--stress is 
that, in light of the Court of Appeals' decision last summer to 
``drastically'' reduce the scope of Microsoft's liability 
and in light of the legal standards for imposing injunctive relief, 
the Department and the settling states were very effective in 
negotiating for broad, strong relief. As the chart in the appendix 
depicts, ever since the Department and the plaintiff states first 
filed their complaints in May 1998, the case has been shrinking. 
What began with five claims, was whittled down to a single monopoly 
maintenance claim by a unanimous Court of Appeals. Even with respect 
to that surviving claim, the appellate court affirmed Judge 
Jackson's findings on only about a third (12 0f35) of the specific 
acts which the district court had found support that claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.  16(b)-(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that history and the law, there is no reasonable argument 
that the PFJ is too narrow or that it fails to achieve all the 
relief to which the Department was entitled. In fact, as these 
remarks explain, the opposite is true--faced with tough, 
determined negotiators on the other side of the table, Microsoft 
agreed to a decree that goes substantially beyond what the 
plaintiffs were likely to achieve through litigation. Quite frankly, 
the PFJ is the strongest, most regulatory conduct decree ever 
obtained (through litigation or settlement) by the Department.
    Why then, one might ask, would Microsoft consent to such a 
decree? There are two reasons. First, the company felt strongly that 
it was important to put this matter behind it and to move forward 
constructively with its customers, its business partners, and the 
government. For four years, the litigation has consumed enormous 
resources and been a serious distraction. The constant media 
drumbeat has obscured the fact that the company puts a premium on 
adhering to its legal obligations and on developing and maintaining 
excellent relationships with its partners and customers. Litigation 
is never a pleasant experience, and given the magnitude of this case 
and the media attention it attracted, it is hard to imagine any more 
costly, unpleasant civil litigation.
    Second, while the Department pushed Microsoft to make 
substantial, even excessive concessions to get a settlement, there 
were limits to how far the company was willing or able to go 
(limits, by the way, which the Department and the settling states 
managed to reach). Microsoft was fighting for an important 
principle--the ability to innovate and improve its products and 
services for the benefit of consumers. To that end, Microsoft 
insisted that the decree be written in a way to allow the company to 
engage in legitimate competition on the merits. Despite the 
substantial burdens the decree will impose on Microsoft and the 
numerous ways in which Microsoft will be forced to alter its 
conduct, the decree does preserve Microsoft's ability to innovate, 
to improve its products, and to engage in procompetitive business 
conduct that is necessary for the company to survive.
    In short, at the end of the negotiations, Microsoft concluded 
that the very real costs that the decree imposes on the company are 
outweighed by the benefits, not just to Microsoft but to the PC 
industry and consumers generally.

Tile Court of Appeals' ``Road Map ``for Relief

    In order to evaluate the decree, one must first appreciate the 
history of this case and how drastically the scope of Microsoft's 
liability was narrowed at the appellate level. When this case began 
with the filing of separate complaints by the Department and the 
plaintiff states in May of 1998, it was focused on Microsoft's 
integration of browsing functionality called Internet Explorer or IE 
into Windows 98, which the plaintiffs alleged to be an illegal tying 
arrangement.
    The complaints of the Department and the states included five 
separate claims: (1) a claim under section 1 of the Sherman Act that 
the tie-in was per se illegal; (2) another claim under section 1 
that certain promotion and distribution agreements with Internet 
service providers (ISPs), Internet content providers (ICPs), and on-
line service providers (OSPs) constituted illegal exclusive dealing; 
(3) a claim under section 2 of the Sherman Act that Microsoft had 
attempted to monopolize Web browsing software; (4) a catch-all claim 
under section 2 that the alleged conduct that underlay the first 
three claims amounted to illegal maintenance of Microsoft's monopoly 
in PC operating systems; and (5) a claim by the plaintiff states 
(but not part of the Department's complaint) under section 2 that 
Microsoft illegally ``leveraged'' its monopoly in PC 
operating systems.\2\ As discovery got underway, the case 
dramatically expanded as the plaintiffs indiscriminately began 
identifying all manner of Microsoft conduct as examples of

[[Page 30214]]

the company's illegal efforts to maintain its monopoly. But then, 
the case began to shrink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Initially the plaintiff states included an additional 
section 2 claim based on Microsoft Office; however, they voluntarily 
dropped that claim in their amended complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to Microsoft's motion for summary judgment, the 
district court dismissed the states' Monopoly leveraging claim 
(claim 5).
    After trial, Judge Jackson held that the plaintiffs failed to 
prove that Microsoft's arrangements with ISPs, ICPs, and OSPs 
violated section 1 (claim 2).
    Judge Jackson did, however, conclude that the plaintiffs had 
sustained their claims that Microsoft illegally tied IE to Windows 
(claim 1), illegally attempted to monopolize the browser market 
(claim 3), and illegally maintained its monopoly (claim 4), basing 
his decision on 35 different actions engaged in by Microsoft.
    In a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, 
the court reversed the trial court on the attempted monopolization 
claim (claim 3) and remanded with instructions that judgment be 
entered on that claim in favor of Microsoft.
    The unanimous court also reversed Judge Jackson's decision with 
respect to the tie-in claim (claim 1). The appellate court held 
that, in light of the prospect of consumer benefit from integrating 
new functionality into platform software such as Windows, 
Microsoft's integration of IE into Windows had to be judged under 
the rule of reason rather than the per se approach taken by Judge 
Jackson. The Court of Appeals refused to apply the per se approach 
because of ``our qualms about redefining the boundaries of a 
defendant's product and the possibility of consumer gains from 
simplifying the work of applications developers [by ensuring the 
ubiquitous dissemination of compatible APIs].'' The court's 
decision did allow the plaintiffs on remand to pursue the tie-in 
claim on a rule of reason theory; however, shortly after the remand, 
the plaintiffs announced they were dropping the tie-in claim.
    With respect to the only remaining claim (monopoly 
maintenance--claim 4), the Court of Appeals affirmed in part 
and reversed in part the lower court and substantially shrank 
Microsoft's liability. After articulating a four-step burden-
shifting test that is highly fact intensive, the appellate court 
reviewed the 35 different factual bases for liability and rejected 
nearly two-thirds of them.
    In the case of seven of those 35 findings (concerning such 
conduct as Microsoft's refusal to allow OEMs to replace the Windows 
desktop, Microsoft's design of Windows to ``override the user's 
choice of a default browser,'' and Microsoft's development of a 
Java virtual machine (JVM) that was incompatible with Sun's JVM), 
the appellate court specifically reversed Judge Jackson's decision.
    At the time Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into 
intensive negotiations, she clearly recognized the importance of the 
drastic alteration to the scope of Microsoft's liability.\6\ The 
judge informed the government that its ``first and most obvious 
task is going to be to determine which portions of the former 
judgment remain appropriate in light of the appellate court's ruling 
and which portions are unsupported following the appellate court's 
narrowing of liability.'' \7\ The judge went on to note 
that ``the scope of any proposed remedy must be carefully 
crafted so as to ensure that the enjoining conduct falls within the 
[penumbra] of behavior which was found to be 
anticompetitive.'' \8\ The judge also stated that 
``Microsoft argues that some of the terms of the former 
judgment are no longer appropriate, and that is correct. I think 
there are certain portions where the liability has been 
narrowed.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This hearing, it should be noted, occurred after the 
plaintiffs had dropped their request for divestiture relief.
    \7\ Transcript of Scheduling Conference before the 
Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, September 28, 2001, at 8.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before discussing the negotiations and the decree itself, I 
would like to make three other points about the crafting of 
antitrust remedies that also are relevant to considering the relief 
to which the plaintiffs were entitled. First, the critics of the PFJ 
routinely ignore the fact that the Department has long acknowledged 
that Microsoft lawfully acquired its monopoly position in PC 
operating systems. Indeed, the Department retained a Nobel laureate 
in the first Microsoft case in 1994 to submit an affidavit to the 
district court opining that Microsoft had reached its position in PC 
operating systems through luck, skill, and foresight.\10\ It is true 
of course that Microsoft has now been found liable for engaging in 
conduct that amounted to illegal efforts to maintain that position; 
however, there is precious little in the record establishing any 
causal link between the twelve illegal acts of ``monopoly 
maintenance'' and Microsoft's current position in the market 
for PC operating systems. Thus, contrary to the critics' overheated 
rhetoric, there is no basis for relief designed to terminate an 
``illegal monopoly.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Declaration of Kenneth J. Arrow was attached as 
an exhibit to the Memorandum of the United States in Support of 
Motion to Enter Final Judgment, filed on January 18, 1995, with the 
District Court in support of the Department's 1994 consent decree 
with Microsoft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, decrees in civil antitrust cases are designed to remedy, 
not to punish. All too often, the critics of this decree speak as 
though Microsoft was convicted of a crime. It was not. This is a 
civil case, subject to the rules of civil rather than criminal 
procedure. To the extent the plaintiffs tried to get relief that 
could be deemed punitive, that relief would have been rejected.
    Third, a decree must serve the purposes of the antitrust laws, 
which is a ``consumer welfare prescription.'' I realize we 
are in the ``season of giving,'' but an antitrust decree 
is not a Christmas tree to fulfill the wishes of competitors, 
particularly where that fulfillment comes at the expense of consumer 
welfare. Calls for royalty-free licensing of Microsoft's 
intellectual property, or for imposing obligations on Microsoft to 
distribute third part{time} , software at no charge, or for 
Microsoft to facilitate the distribution of an infinite variety of 
bastardized versions of Windows (and make sure they all run 
perfectly) are great for a small group of competitors who know that 
such provisions will quickly destroy Microsoft's incentives and 
ability to compete (not to mention violate the Constitution's 
proscription against ``takings'').
    Such calls, however, are anathema to consumers' interests in a 
dynamic, innovative computer industry. Twenty years ago, my old boss 
and antitrust icon, Bill Baxter, warned about the anticompetitive 
consequences of antitrust decrees designed simply to ``add sand 
to the saddlebags'' of a particularly fleet competitor like 
Microsoft. It's a warning the courts would certainly heed today.
    To their credit, the negotiators for the Department and the 
settling states understood these three fundamental antitrust 
principles. While we may have had to remind the other side of these 
principles from time to time, we did not have to negotiate for their 
adherence to them. Taxpayers and consumers can be proud that their 
interests were represented by honorable men and women with the 
utmost respect for the rule of law. For others to insinuate that, by 
agreeing to a decree that honors these three fundamental principles, 
the Department and the settling states ``caved'' or 
settled for inadequate relief is as offensive as it is laughable.

The Negotiations

    It is against the background I have sketched that, on September 
27th, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into intensive, 
``around the clock'' negotiations. Microsoft had already 
indicated publicly its strong desire to try to settle the case, and 
so it welcomed the judge's order. As has been widely reported, all 
the parties in the case took the court's order very seriously. 
Microsoft assembled in Washington, DC, a core team of in-house and 
outside lawyers who have been living with this case for years, and 
who spent virtually all of the next five weeks camped out in my 
offices down the street. Microsoft's top legal officer was in town 
during much of the period directing the negotiations. Back in 
Redmond, the company's most senior executives devoted a great deal 
of time and energy to the process, and we were all supported by a 
large group of dedicated lawyers, businesspeople, and staff.
    From my vantage point, the Department and the states (at least 
those that settled) made an equivalent effort. As the mediator wrote 
after the process ended, ``No party was left out of the 
negotiations. . . . Throughout most of the mediation the 
19 states (through their executive committee representatives) and 
the federal government (through the staff of the antitrust division) 
worked as a combined ``plaintiffs' team.'' \11\ Jay 
Himes from the office of the New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer 
and Beth Finnerty from the office of the Ohio Attorney General Betty 
Montgomery represented the states throughout the negotiations, 
putting in the same long hours as the rest of us. At various points 
Mr. Himes and Ms. Finnerty were joined by representatives from other 
states,

[[Page 30215]]

including Kevin O'Connor from the office of Wisconsin Attorney 
General James Doyle.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Eric D. Green and Jonathan B. Marks, How We Mediated 
the Microsoft Case, Boston Globe, at A23 (November 15, 2001).
    \12\ Mr. O'Connor, as well as attorneys in the office of 
the New York Attorney General, had served as counsel of record for 
the states in the litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The negotiations began on September 28th and continued virtually 
non-stop until November 6th. During the first two weeks, we 
negotiated without the benefit of a mediator. As they say in 
diplomatic circles, the discussions were ``full and 
frank.'' The Department lawyers and the state representatives 
in the negotiation were extremely knowledgeable, diligent, and 
formidable.
    Microsoft certainly hoped to be able to reach a settlement 
quickly and before a mediator was designated. However, the views on 
all sides were sufficiently strong and the need to pay attention to 
every sentence, phrase, and punctuation mark so overwhelming that 
reaching agreement proved impossible in those first two weeks. Eric 
Green, a prominent mediation specialist, was appointed by the court 
and with the help of Jonathan Marks spent the next three weeks 
helping the parties find common ground. As Professor Green and Mr. 
Marks wrote after the mediation ended,
    ``Successful mediations are ones in which mediators and 
parties work to identify and overcome barriers to reaching 
agreement. Successful mediations are ones in which all the parties 
engage in reasoned discussions of issues that divide them, of 
options for settlement, and of the risks, opportunities, and costs 
that each party faces if a settlement isn't reached. Successful 
mediations are ones in which, settle or not, senior representatives 
of each party have made informed and intelligent decisions. The 
Microsoft mediation was successful.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Green and Marks, supra fn. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Working day and night virtually until the original November 2 
deadline set by the judge, Microsoft and the Department agreed to 
and signed a decree early on November 2. The representatives of the 
states also tentatively agreed, subject to an opportunity from 
November 2 until November 6 to confer with the other states that 
were more removed from the case and negotiations. During that 
period, the states requested several clarifying modifications to 
which Microsoft (and the Department) agreed. From press reports, it 
appears that during this period the plaintiff states also were being 
subjected to intense lobbying by a few of Microsoft's competitors 
who were desperate either to get a decree that would severely 
cripple if not eventually destroy Microsoft or at least to keep the 
litigation (and the attendant costs imposed on Microsoft) going. 
Notwithstanding that pressure, New York, Wisconsin, and 
Ohio--the states that had made the largest investment in 
litigating against Microsoft and in negotiating a 
settlement--along with six other plaintiff states represented 
by a bipartisan group of state attorneys general signed onto the 
Revised PFJ on November 6.

The Proposed Final Judgment

    Throughout the negotiations, Microsoft was confronted by a 
determined and tough group of negotiators for the Department and the 
states. They made clear that there would be no settlement unless 
Microsoft went well beyond the relief to which, Microsoft believes, 
the Court of Appeals opinion and the law entitles the plaintiffs. 
Once that became clear, Microsoft relented in significant ways, 
subject only to narrow language that preserved Microsoft's ability 
to innovate and engage in normal, clearly procompetitive activities. 
Professor Green, the one neutral observer of this drama, has noted 
the broad scope of the prohibitions and obligations imposed on 
Microsoft by the PFJ, stating during the status conference with 
Judge Kollar-Kotelly that ``the parties have not stopped at the 
outer limits of the Court of Appeals' decision, but in some 
important respects the proposed final judgment goes beyond the 
issues affirmed by the Court of Appeals to deal with issues 
important to the parties in this rapidly-changing 
technology.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Transcript of Status Conference before the Honorable 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, November 2, 2001, at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I do not intend today to provide a detailed description of each 
provision of the PFJ; the provisions speak for themselves. It may 
come as something of a surprise in light of some of the uninformed 
criticism hurled at the decree, but one of Microsoft's principal 
objectives during the negotiations was to develop proscriptions and 
obligations that were sufficiently clear, precise and certain to 
ensure that the company and its employees would be able to 
understand and comply with the decree without constantly engendering 
disputes with the Department. This is an area of complex technology 
and the decree terms on which the Department insisted entailed a 
degree of technical sophistication that is unprecedented in an 
antitrust decree. Drafting to these specifications was not easy, but 
the resulting PFJ is infinitely clearer and easier to administer 
than the conduct provisions of the decree that Judge Jackson imposed 
in June 2000.
    If, as one might suspect would be the outcome in a case such as 
this, the PFJ were written to proscribe only the twelve practices 
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the decree would be much shorter 
and simpler. The Department and settling states, however, insisted 
that the decree go beyond just focused prohibitions to create much 
more general protections for a potentially large category of 
software, which the PFJ calls ``middleware.'' But even 
these expansive provisions to foster middleware competition were not 
sufficient to induce the Department and the states to settle; 
rather, they insisted that Microsoft also agree to additional 
obligations that bear virtually no relationship to any of the issues 
addressed by the district court and the Court of Appeals. And lastly 
they insisted on unprecedented enforcement provisions. I will 
briefly describe each of these three sets of provisions.

1. Protections for ``Middleware''

    The case that the plaintiffs tried and the narrowed liability 
that survived appellate review all hinged on claims that Microsoft 
took certain actions to exclude Netscape's Navigator browser and 
Sun's Java technology from the market in order to protect the 
Windows operating system monopoly. The plaintiffs successfully 
argued that Microsoft feared that Navigator and Java, either alone 
or together, might eventually include and expose a broad set of 
general purpose APIs to which software developers could write as an 
alternative to the Windows APIs. Since Navigator and Java can run on 
multiple operating systems, if they developed into general purpose 
platforms, Navigator and Java would provide a means of overcoming 
the ``applications barrier'' to entry and threaten the 
position of the Windows operating system as platform software.
    A person might expect that a decree designed to address such a 
monopoly maintenance claim would provide relief with respect to Web-
browsing software and Java or, at most, to other general purpose 
platform software that exposes a broad set of APIs and is ported to 
run on multiple operating systems. The PFJ goes much further. The 
Department insisted that obligations imposed on Microsoft by the 
decree extend to a range of software that has little in common with 
Navigator and Java. The decree applies to ``middleware'' 
broadly defined to include, in addition to Web-browsing software and 
Java, instant messaging software, media players, and even email 
clients--software that, Microsoft believes, has virtually no 
chance of developing into broad, general purpose platforms that 
might threaten to displace the Windows platform. In addition, there 
is a broad catch-all definition of middleware that in the future is 
likely to sweep other similar software into the decree.
    This sweeping definition of middleware is significant because of 
the substantial obligations it imposes on Microsoft. Those 
obligations--a number of which lack any correspondence to the 
monopoly maintenance findings that survived appellate 
review--are intended to create protections for all the vendors 
of software that fits within the middleware definition. Taken 
together, the decree provisions provide the following protections 
and opportunities:
    Relations with Computer Makers. Microsoft has agreed not to 
retaliate against computer makers who ship soft-ware that competes 
with anything in its Windows operating system.
    Computer Maker Flexibility. Microsoft has agreed to grant 
computer makers broad new rights to configure Windows so as to 
promote non-Microsoft software programs that compete with features 
of Windows. Computer makers will now be free to remove the means by 
which consumers access important features of Windows, such as 
Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger. 
Notwithstanding the billions of dollars Microsoft invests developing 
such cool new features, computer makers will now be able to replace 
access to them in order to give prominence to non-Microsoft software 
such as programs from AOL Time Warner or RealNetworks. 
(Additionally, as is the case today, computer makers can provide 
consumers with a choice--that is to say access to Windows 
features as well as to non-Microsoft software programs.)
    Windows Design Obligations. Microsoft has agreed to design 
future versions of

[[Page 30216]]

Windows, beginning with an interim release of Windows XP, to provide 
a mechanism to make it easy for computer makers, consumers and 
software developers to promote non-Microsoft software within 
Windows. The mechanism will make it easy to add or remove access to 
features built in to Windows or to non-Microsoft software. Consumers 
will have the freedom to choose to change their configuration at any 
time.
    Internal Interface Disclosure. Even though there is no 
suggestion in the Court of Appeals'' decision that Microsoft 
fails to disclose APIs today and even though the Court of 
Appeals'' holding on monopoly power is predicated on the idea 
that there are tens of thousands of applications written to call 
upon those APIs, Microsoft has agreed to document and disclose for 
use by its competitors various interfaces that are internal to 
Windows operating system products.
    Relations with Software Developers. Microsoft has agreed not to 
retaliate against software or hardware developers who develop or 
promote software that competes with Windows or that runs on software 
that competes with Windows.
    Contractual Restrictions. Microsoft has agreed not to enter into 
any agreements obligating any third party to distribute or promote 
any Windows technology exclusively or in a fixed percentage, subject 
to certain narrow exceptions that apply to agreements raising no 
competitive concern. Microsoft has also agreed not to enter into 
agreements relating to Windows that obligate any software developer 
to refrain from developing or promoting software that competes with 
Windows.
    These obligations go far beyond the twelve practices that the 
Court of Appeals found to constitute monopoly maintenance. One of 
the starkest examples of the extent to which these provisions go 
beyond the Court of Appeals decision relates to Microsoft's 
obligations to design Windows in such a way as to give third parties 
the ability to designate non-Microsoft middleware as the 
``default'' choice in certain circumstances in which 
Windows might otherwise be designed to utilize functionality 
integrated into Windows. As support for his monopoly maintenance 
conclusion, Judge Jackson had relied on several circumstances in 
which Windows was designed to override the end users'' choice 
of Navigator as their default browser and instead to invoke IE. The 
Court of Appeals, however, reviewed those circumstances and reversed 
Judge Jackson's conclusion on the ground that Microsoft had 
``valid technical reasons'' for designing Windows as it 
did. Notwithstanding this clear victory, Microsoft acceded to the 
Department's demands that it design future versions of Windows to 
ensure certain default opportunities for non-Microsoft middleware.

2. Uniform Prices and Server Interoperability

    Nevertheless, agreeing to this wide range of prohibitions and 
obligations designed to encourage the development of middleware 
broadly defined was not enough to get the plaintiffs to settle. 
Instead, they insisted on two additional substantive provisions that 
have absolutely no correspondence to the findings of monopoly 
maintenance liability that survived appeal.
    Uniform Price List. Microsoft has agreed to license its Windows 
operating system products to the 20 largest computer makers (who 
collectively account for the great majority of PC sales) on 
identical terms and conditions, including price (subject to 
reasonable volume discounts for computer makers who ship large 
volumes of Windows).
    Client/Server Interoperability. Microsoft has agreed to make 
available to its competitors, on reasonable and non-discriminatory 
terms, any protocols implemented in Windows desktop operating 
systems that are used to interoperate natively with any Microsoft 
server operating system.
    In the case of the sweeping definition of middleware and the 
range of prohibitions and obligations imposed on Microsoft, there is 
at least a patina of credibility to the argument that the penumbra 
of the twelve monopoly maintenance practices affirmed by the Court 
of Appeals can be stretched to justify those provisions, at least as 
``fencing in'' provisions. There is no sensible reading of 
the Court of Appeals decision that would provide any basis for 
requiring Microsoft to charge PC manufacturers uniform prices or to 
make available the proprietary protocols used by Windows desktop 
operating systems and Windows server operating systems to 
communicate with each other. Nevertheless, because the plaintiffs 
insisted that they would not settle without those two provisions, 
Microsoft also agreed to them.
    Before turning to the enforcement provisions of the PFJ, I want 
to say a word about the few provisos included in the decree that 
provide narrow exceptions to the various prohibitions and 
obligations imposed on Microsoft. Those exceptions were critical to 
Microsoft's willingness to agree to the sweeping provisions on which 
the plaintiffs insisted. Without these narrowly tailored exceptions, 
Microsoft could not innovate or engage in normal procompetitive 
commercial activities. The public can rest assured that the settling 
plaintiffs insisted on language to ensure that the exceptions only 
apply when they promote consumer welfare. For example, some 
companies that compete with Microsoft for the sale of server 
operating systems apparently have complained about the so-called 
``security carve-out'' to Microsoft's obligation to 
disclose internal interfaces and protocols. That exception is very 
narrow and only allows Microsoft to withhold encryption 
``keys'' and the similar mechanisms that must be kept 
secret if the security of computer networks and the privacy of user 
information is to be ensured. In light of all the concern over 
computer privacy and security these days, it is surprising that 
there is any controversy over such a narrow exception.

3. Compliance and Enforcement

    The broad substantive provisions of the PFJ are complemented by 
an unusually strong set of compliance and enforcement provisions. 
Those provisions are unprecedented in a civil antitrust decree. The 
PFJ creates an independent three-person technical committee, 
resident on the Microsoft campus, with extraordinary powers and full 
access to Microsoft facilities, records, employees and proprietary 
technical data, including Windows source code, which is the 
equivalent of the ``secret formula'' for Coke. The 
technical committee provides a level of technical oversight that is 
far more substantial than any provision of any other antitrust 
decree of which I am aware. At the insistence of the plaintiffs, the 
technical committee does not have independent enforcement authority; 
rather, reports to the plaintiffs and, through them, to the court. 
The investigative and oversight authority of the technical committee 
in no way limits or reduces the enforcement powers of the DOJ and 
states; rather, the technical committee supplements and enhances 
those powers. Each of the settling states and DOJ have the power to 
enforce the decree and have the ability to monitor compliance and 
seek a broad range of remedies in the event of a violation.
    Microsoft also agreed to develop and implement an internal 
antitrust compliance program, to distribute the decree and educate 
its management and employees as to the various restrictions and 
obligations. In recent years, Microsoft has assembled in-house one 
of the largest, most talented groups of antitrust lawyers in 
corporate America. They are already engaged in substantial antitrust 
compliance counseling and monitoring. The decree formalizes those 
efforts, and quite frankly adds very substantially to the in-house 
lawyers'' work. As we speak, that group, together with key 
officials from throughout the Microsoft organization, are working to 
implement the decree and to ensure the company's compliance with it.
    As with the substantive provisions, Microsoft agreed to these 
unprecedented compliance and enforcement provisions because of the 
adamance of the plaintiffs and because of the highly technical 
nature of the decree. Microsoft, the Department, and the settling 
states recognized that it was appropriate to include 
mechanisms--principally, the technical committee--that 
will facilitate the prompt and expert resolution of any technical 
disputes that might be raised by third parties, without in any way 
derogating from the government's full enforcement powers under the 
decree. Although the enforcement provisions are unprecedented in 
their stringency and scope, they are not necessitated or justified 
by any valid claim that Microsoft has failed to comply with its 
decree obligations in the past. In fact, Microsoft has an exemplary 
record of complying with the consent decree to which the company and 
the Department agreed in 1994. In 1997, the Department did question 
whether Microsoft's integration of IE into Windows 95 violated a 
``fencing in'' provision that prohibited contractual tie-
ins, but Microsoft was ultimately vindicated by the Court of 
Appeals.\15\ Microsoft has committed itself to that same level of 
dedication in ensuring the company's compliance with the PFJ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ United States v. Microsoft, 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 
1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conclusion

[[Page 30217]]

    The PFJ strikes an appropriate balance in this complicated case, 
providing opportunities and protections for firms seeking to compete 
while allowing Microsoft to continue to innovate and bring new 
technologies to market. The decree is faithful to the fact that the 
antitrust laws are a ``consumer protection prescription,'' 
and it ensures an economic environment in which all parts of the PC-
ecosystem can thrive.
    Make no mistake, however, the PFJ is tough. It will impose 
substantial new obligations on the company, and it will require 
significant changes in the way Microsoft does business. It imposes 
heavy costs on the company and entails a degree of oversight that is 
unprecedented in a civil antitrust case. For some competitors of 
Microsoft, however, apparently nothing short of the destruction of 
Microsoft--or at least the ongoing distraction of 
litigation-- will be sufficient. But if the objective is to 
protect the interests of consumers and the competitive process, then 
this decree more than achieves that goal.
    Finally, for all those who are worried about the future and what 
unforeseen developments may not be covered by this case and the 
decree, remember that the Court of Appeals decision now provides 
guideposts, which previously did not exist, for judging Microsoft's 
behavior, and that of other high technology companies, going 
forward. Those guidelines, it is true, are not always easy to apply 
ex ante to conduct; however, now that the Court of Appeals has 
spoken, we all have a much better idea of the way in which section 2 
of the Sherman Act applies to the software industry. In short, what 
antitrust law requires of Microsoft is today much clearer than it 
was when this case began. We have all learned a lot over the last 
four years, and Microsoft has every incentive to ensure that history 
does not repeat itself.



MTC-00033734

Testimony of Professor Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School, before 
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary at its hearing: The Microsoft 
Settlement: A Look to the Future
December 12, 2001
    Four years after the United States government initiated legal 
action against the Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft, the federal 
government, and nine states have agreed upon a consent decree 
(``the proposed decree'') to settle the finding of 
antitrust liability that the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has 
unanimously affirmed. In my view, that consent decree suffers from a 
significant, if narrow, flaw. While it properly enlists the market 
as the ultimate check on Microsoft's wrongful behavior, it fails to 
provide an adequate mechanism of enforcement to implement its 
requirements. If it is adopted without modification, it will fail to 
achieve the objectives that the government had when it brought this 
case.
    Yet while it is important that an adequate and effective remedy 
be imposed against Microsoft, in my view it equally important that 
any remedy not be extreme. Microsoft is no longer the most 
significant threat to innovation on the Internet. Indeed, as I 
explain more fully below, under at least one understanding of its 
current Internet strategy, Microsoft could well play a crucial role 
in assuring a strong and neutral platform for innovation in the 
future. Thus, rather than retribution, a remedy should aim to steer 
the company toward this benign and beneficial strategy. Obviously, 
this benign understanding of Microsoft's current strategy is not the 
only understanding. Nor do I believe that anyone should simply trust 
Microsoft to adopt it. But its possibility does suggest the 
importance of balance in any remedy. The proposed decree does not 
achieve that balance, but neither, in my view, does the alternative.
    I am a law professor at Stanford Law School and have written 
extensively about the interaction between law and technology. My 
most recent book addresses directly the effect of law and technology 
on innovation. I have also been involved in the proceedings of this 
case. In 1997, I was appointed special master in the action to 
enforce the 1995 consent decree. That appointment was vacated by the 
Court of Appeals when it concluded that the powers granted me 
exceeded the scope of the special master statute. United States v. 
Microsoft Corporation, 147 F.3d 935, 953-56 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 
(``Microsoft II''). I was then invited by the District 
Court to submit a brief on the question of using software code to 
``tie'' two products together.\1\ I have subsequently 
spent a great deal of time studying the case and its resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this testimony, I outline the background against which I draw 
my conclusions. I then consider the proposed decree, and some of the 
strengths and weaknesses of the alternative proposed to the District 
Court by the nine remaining states (the ``alternative''). 
Finally, I consider two particular areas in which this Committee may 
usefully consider action in light of the experience in this case.

BACKGROUND

    In June, 2001, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit 
unanimously affirmed Judge Jackson's conclusion that Microsoft used 
its power over Windows to protect itself against innovation that 
threatened its monopoly power. United States v. Microsoft 
Corporation, 253 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Microsoft lID. That 
behavior, the Court concluded, violated the nation's antitrust laws. 
The Court therefore ordered the District Court to craft a remedy 
that would ``''unfetter [the] 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.'' Microsoft III, 253 F.2d at 103 (citations omitted).
    Integral to the Court's conclusion was its finding that 
Microsoft had ``commingled code'' in such a way as to 
interfere with the ability of competitors to offer equivalent 
products on an even playing field. As the District Court found, and 
the Court of Appeals affirmed, Microsoft had designed its products 
in such a way as to inhibit the substitution of certain product 
functionality. This design, the district court concluded, served no 
legitimate business interest. The Court's conclusion was therefore 
that Microsoft had acted strategically to protect its market power 
against certain forms of competition.
    In my view, this holding by the Court of Appeals is both correct 
and important. It vindicates a crucial principle for the future of 
innovation generally, and in particular, on the Internet. By 
affirming the principle that no company with market power may use 
its power over a platform to protect itself against competition, the 
Court has assured competitors in this and other fields that the 
ultimate test of success for their products is not the decision by a 
platform owner, but the choice of consumers using the product. To 
the extent that Microsoft's behavior violated this principle, and 
continues to violate this principle, it is appropriate for the 
District Court to craft a remedy that will stop that violation.
    An appropriate remedy, however, must take into account the 
competitive context at the time the remedy is imposed. And in my 
view, it is crucially important to see that Microsoft does not 
represent the only, or even the most significant, threat to 
innovation on the Internet. If the exercise of power over a platform 
to protect that platform owner from competition is a threat to 
innovation (as I believe the Court of Appeals has found), then there 
are other actors who also have significant power over aspects of the 
Internet platform who could also pose a similarly dangerous threat 
to the neutral platform for innovation that the Internet as has 
been. For example, broadband cable could become a similar threat to 
innovation, if access to the Internet through cable is architected 
so as to give cable the power to discriminate among applications and 
content. Similarly, as Chairman Michael Powell suggested in a recent 
speech about broadband technology, overly protective intellectual 
property laws could well present a threat to broadband 
deployment.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See  (suggesting ``re-examining the copyright 
laws'' and comparing freedom assured by decision permitting 
VCRs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft could play a significant role in resisting this kind 
of corruption of the Internet's basic values, and could therefore 
play an important role in preserving the environment for innovation 
on the net. In particular, under one understanding of Microsoft's 
current Internet strategy (which I will refer to generally as the 
``.NET strategy''), Microsoft's architecture would push 
computing power and network control to the ``edge'' or 
``ends'' of the network, and away from the network's core. 
This is consistent with a founding design principle of the early 
network--what network architects Jerome Saltzer, David Clark, 
and David Reed call ``the end-to-end argument.''\3\ .NET's 
possible support of this principle would compete with pressures that 
now encourage a compromise of the end-to-end design. To the extent 
Microsoft's strategy resists that compromise,

[[Page 30218]]

it could become a crucial force in preserving the innovation of the 
early network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ a See End to End Arguments in System .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is not to say that this benign, pro-competitive design is 
the only way that Microsoft could implement its .NET strategy. There 
are other implementations that could certainly continue Microsoft's 
present threat to corn-Design, petition. And obviously, I am not 
arguing that anyone should trust Microsoft's representation that it 
intends one kind of implementation over another. Trust alone is not 
an adequate remedy to the current antitrust trial.
    My point instead is that there is little reason to vilify a 
company with a strong and powerful interest in a strategy that might 
well reinforce competition on the Internet-- especially when, 
excepting the open source and free software companies presently 
competing with Microsoft, few of the other major actors have 
revealed a similarly pro-Internet strategy. Thus, rather than 
adopting a remedy that is focused exclusively on the ``last 
war,'' a proper remedy to the current antitrust case should be 
sufficient to steer Microsoft towards its benign strategy, while 
assuring an adequate response if it fails to follow this pro-
competitive lead.
    Such a remedy must be strong but also effectively and 
efficiently enforceable. The fatal weakness in the proposed decree 
is not so much the extent of the restrictions on Microsoft's 
behavior, as it is the weaknesses in the proposed mechanisms for 
enforcement. Fixing that flaw is no doubt necessary to assure an 
adequate decree. In my view, it may also be sufficient.

THE PROPOSED DECREE

    While the proposed decree is not a model of clarity, the essence 
of its strategy is simply stated: To use the market to police 
Microsoft's monopoly. The decree does this by assuring that computer 
manufacturers and software vendors remain free to bundle and support 
non-Microsoft software without fear of punishment by Microsoft. Dell 
or Compaq are thus guaranteed the right to bundle browsers from 
Netscape or media players from Apple regardless of the mix that 
Microsoft has built into Windows. Autonomy from Microsoft is thus 
the essence of the plan--the freedom to include any 
``middleware'' software with an operating system 
regardless of whether or not it benefits Microsoft.
    If this plan could be made to work, it would be the ideal remedy 
to this four year struggle. Government regulators can't know what 
should or should not be in an operating system. The market should 
make that choice. And if competitors and computer manufacturers 
could be assured that they can respond to the demands of the market 
without fear of retaliation by Microsoft, then in my view they would 
play a sufficient role in checking any misbehavior by Microsoft.
    The weakness in the proposed decree, however, is its failure to 
specify any effective mechanism for assuring that Microsoft 
complies. The central lesson that regulators should have learned 
from this case is the inability of the judicial system to respond 
quickly enough to violations of the law.
    Thus the first problem that any proposed decree should have 
resolved is a more efficient way to assure that Microsoft complies 
with the decree's requirements. Under the existing system for 
enforcement, by the time a wrong is adjudicated, the harm of the 
wrong is complete.
    Yet the proposed decree does nothing to address this central 
problem. The decree does not include provision for a special master, 
or panel of masters, to assure that disagreements about application 
could be quickly resolved. Nor does it provide an alternative fast-
track enforcement mechanism to guarantee compliance.
    Instead the decree envisions the creation of a committee of 
technical experts, trained in computer programming, who will oversee 
Microsoft's compliance. But while such expertise is necessary in the 
ongoing enforcement of the decree, equally important will be the 
interpretation and application of the decree to facts as they arise. 
This role cannot be played by technical experts, and yet in my view, 
this is the most important role in the ongoing enforcement of the 
decree.
    For example, the decree requires that Microsoft not retaliate 
against an independent software vendor because that vendor develops 
or supports products that compete with Microsoft's. Proposed Decree, 
 III.B. By implication, this means Microsoft would be 
free to retaliate for other reasons unrelated to the vendor's 
competing software. Whether a particular act was 
``retaliation'' for an improper purpose is not a technical 
question. It is an interpretive question calling upon the skills of 
a lawyer. To resolve that question would therefore require a 
different set of skills from those held by members of the technical 
committee.
    The remedy for this weakness is a better enforcement mechanism. 
As the nine remaining states have suggested, a special master with 
the authority to interpret and apply the decree would assure a rapid 
and effective check on Microsoft's improper behavior. While I 
suggest some potential problems with the appointment of a special 
master in the final section of this testimony, this arrangement 
would assure effective monitoring of Microsoft, subject to appeal to 
the District Court.
    The failure to include an effective enforcement mechanism is, in 
my view, the fatal weakness in the proposed decree. And while I 
agree with the nine remaining states that there are other weaknesses 
as well, in my view these other weaknesses are less important than 
this single flaw. More specifically, in my view, were the decree 
modified to assure an effective enforcement mechanism, then it may 
well suffice to assure the decree's success. Without this 
modification, there is little more than faith to assure that this 
decree will work. With this modification, even an incompletely 
specified decree may suffice.
    The reason, in my view, is that even a partial, yet effectively 
enforced decree, could be sufficient to steer Microsoft away from 
strategic behavior harmful to competition. Even if every loophole is 
not closed, if the decree can be effectively enforced, then it could 
suffice to push Microsoft towards a benign, pro-competitive 
strategy. The proposed decree has certainly targeted the most 
important opportunity for strategic, or anti-competitive, behavior. 
If the chance to act on these without consequence is removed, then 
in my view, Microsoft has a strong incentive to focus its future 
behavior towards an implementation of its .NET strategy that would 
reinforce rather than weaken the competitive field. An effective, if 
incomplete, decree could, in other words, suffice to drive Microsoft 
away from the pattern of strategic behavior that has been proven 
against it in the Court of Appeals.
    There are those who believe Microsoft will adopt this benign 
strategy whether or not there is a remedy imposed against them. 
Indeed, some within Microsoft apparently believe that supporting a 
neutral open platform is in the best interests of the company.\4\ 
Given the significant findings of liability affirmed by the Court of 
Appeals, I do not believe it is appropriate to leave these matters 
to faith. But I do believe that a remedy can tilt Microsoft towards 
this better strategy, at least if the remedy can be efficiently 
enforced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This is the argument of David Bank's Breaking Windows: 
How Bill Gates Fumbled the Future of Microsoft (New York: Free 
Press, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE NINE STATES' ALTERNATIVE

    On Friday, December 7, 2001, the nine states that have not 
agreed to the proposed consent decree outlined an alternative remedy 
to the one proposed by the Justice Department. In many ways, I 
believe this alternative is superior to the Justice Department's 
proposed decree. This alternative more effectively protects against 
a core strategy attacked in the District Court--the commingling 
of code designed to protect Microsoft's monopoly power. It has an 
effective enforcement provision, envisioning the appointment of a 
special master. The alternative has a much stronger mechanism for 
adding competition to the market--by requiring that Microsoft 
continue to market older versions of its operating system in 
competition with new versions. And finally, the alternative requires 
that Microsoft continue to distribute Java technologies as its has 
in prior Windows versions.
    The alternative, however, goes beyond what in my view is 
necessary. And while in light of the past, erring on the side of 
overly protective remedies might make sense, I will describe a few 
areas where the alternative may have gone too far, after a brief 
description of a few of the differences that I believe are genuine 
improvements.
    Areas of Common Strategy
    Both the proposed decree and the alternative agree on a common 
set of strategies for restoring competition in the market place. 
Both seek to assure autonomy for computer manufacturers and software 
vendors to bundle products on the Microsoft platform differently 
according to consumer demand. Both decrees aim at that end by 
guaranteeing nondiscriminatory licensing practices, and restrictions 
on retaliation against providers who bundle or support non-Microsoft 
products. The alternative specifies this strategy more cleanly than 
the proposed decree. It is also more comprehensive. But both are 
aiming rightly

[[Page 30219]]

at the same common end: to empower competitors to check Microsoft's 
power.
    Improvements of the Alternative
    The alternative remedy adds features to the proposed decree that 
are in my view beneficial. Central among these is the more effective 
enforcement mechanism. The alternative proposes the establishment of 
a special master, with sufficient authority to oversee compliance. 
This, as I've indicated, is a necessary condition of any successful 
decree, and may also be sufficient.
    Beyond this significant change, however, there are a number of 
valuable additions in the states'' alternative. By targeting 
the ``binding'' of middleware to the operating system, the 
alternative more effectively addresses a primary concern of the 
Court of Appeals. This restriction assures that Microsoft does not 
architect its software in a way that enables it strategically to 
protect itself against competition. Such binding was found by the 
courts to make it costly for users to select competing 
functionality, without any compensating pro-competitive benefit.
    The alternative also assures much greater competition with new 
versions of the Windows operating system by requiring that prior 
versions continue to be licensed by Microsoft. This competition 
would make it harder for Microsoft to use its monopoly power to push 
users to adopt new versions of the operating system that advance 
Microsoft's strategic objectives, but not consumer preferences.
    Finally, the alternative addresses a troubling decision by 
Microsoft to refuse to distribute Java technologies with Windows XP. 
This decision by Microsoft raises a significant concern that 
Microsoft is determined to continue to play strategically to 
strengthen the applications barrier to entry.
    Concerns about the proposed alternative
    While I believe the alternative represents a significant 
improvement over the proposed consent decree, I am concerned that 
the alternative may go beyond the proper scope of the remedy.
    Open Sourcing Internet Explorer: While I am a strong supporter 
of the free and open source software movements, and believe software 
of both varieties is unlikely ever to pose any of the same strategic 
threats that closed source software does, I am not convinced the 
requirement of open sourcing Internet Explorer is yet required, or 
even effective. Both proposed remedies have a strong requirement 
that application interfaces be disclosed, and until that remedy 
proves incomplete, I don't believe the much more extreme requirement 
of full disclosure of source code is merited.
    The definition of Middleware Products: The central target of the 
litigation was Microsoft's behavior with respect to middleware 
software. Understood in terms relevant to this case, middleware 
software is software that lowers the applications barrier to entry 
by reducing the cost of cross-platform compatibility. Java tied to 
the Netscape browser is an example of middleware so understood; had 
it been successfully and adequately deployed, it would have made it 
easier for application program developers to develop applications 
that were operating system agnostic, and therefore would have 
increased the demand for other competing operating systems.
    This definition is consistent with the alternative definition of 
``middleware.'' But the specification of ``middleware 
products'' reaches, in my view, beyond the target of 
``middleware.'' Middleware is not properly understood as 
software that increases the number of cross-platform applications; 
middleware is software that increases the ease with which cross-
platform programs can be written. Thus, for example, Office is not 
middleware simply because it is a cross-platform program. It would 
only qualify as middleware if it made it easier for programmers to 
write platform-agnostic code.
    The requirement that Office be ported: For a similar reason, I 
am not convinced of the propriety of requiring that Office be 
ported. While Office for the Macintosh is certainly a crucial 
application for the continued viability of the Macintosh OS, having 
Office on many platforms does not significantly affect the 
applications barrier to entry. No doubt if Microsoft strategically 
pulled the development of Office in order to defeat another 
operating system, or if it aggressively resisted applications that 
were designed to be compatible with Office (such as Sun's Star 
Office), that could raise antitrust concerns. But the failure simply 
to develop office for another platform would not itself respond to 
the concerns of the Court of Appeals.
    No doubt, each of these additional remedies might be conceived 
of as necessary prophylactics given a judgment that Microsoft is 
resolved to continue its strategic anticompetitive behavior. And 
after a fair and adequate hearing in the District Court, such a 
prophylactic may well prove justified. At this stage, however, I am 
not convinced these have been proven necessary.

APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

    It is obviously inappropriate for Congress to intervene in an 
ongoing legal dispute with the intent to alter the ultimate judgment 
of the judicial process. Thus while I believe it is extremely 
helpful and important that this Committee review the matters at 
stake at this time, there is a limit to what this Committee can 
properly do. In a system of separated powers, Congress does not sit 
in judgment over decisions by Courts.
    Yet there are two aspects to this case that do justify a greater 
concern by Congress. Both aspects are intimately tied to earlier 
decisions by the Court of Appeals. First, in light of the Court of 
Appeals'' judgment in the 1995 Microsoft litigation, United 
States v. Microsoft Corporation, 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) 
(Microsoft I), it is clear that the Tunney Act proceedings before 
the District Court are extraordinarily narrow. Second, in light of 
the Court of Appeals'' judgment in 1998 Microsoft litigation, 
Microsoft II, it is not clear that, absent consent of the parties, 
the District Court has the power to appoint a special master with 
the necessary authority to assure enforcement of any proposed 
remedy. Both concerns may justify this Committee taking an 
especially active role to assure a proper judgment can be 
reached--in the first case through its consultation with the 
executive, and the second, possibly with clearer legislative 
authority.

The Tunney Act Proceedings

    In Microsoft I, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held 
that the District Court's authority under the Tunney Act to question 
a consent decree proposed by the government was exceptionally 
narrow. Though that statute requires that the District Court assure 
that any consent decree is ``within the public interest,'' 
the Court read that standard to be extremely narrow. If the decree 
can be said to be within ``the reaches of the public 
interest,'' Microsoft I, 56 F.3d at 1461, then it is to be 
upheld.
    The consequence of this holding is that it will be especially 
hard for the District Court to question the government's proposed 
decree. Absent a showing of corruption, the decree must be affirmed. 
It is hard for me to imagine that the proposed decree would fail 
this extremely deferential standard. Thus any weaknesses in the 
proposed decree would have to be resolved in the parallel 
proceedings being pursued by the nine states.
    This deference may be a reason for Congress in the future to 
revisit the standard under the Tunney Act. Such a review could not 
properly affect this case, but concerns about this case may well 
suggest the value in future contexts.
    But the concern about this decree may well be relevant to this 
Committee's view about the appropriateness of the government's 
cooperation with any ongoing prosecution by the nine states. The 
federal government may well have decided its remedy is enough; it 
wouldn't follow from that determination that the federal government 
has a reason to oppose the stronger remedies sought by the states. 
At a minimum, the government should free advisors or consultants it 
has worked with to aid the continuing states as they may desire.
    The power to appoint a ``special master''
    In Microsoft II, the Court of Appeals interpreted a District 
Court's power to appoint a special master quite narrowly. While the 
Court acknowledged the strong tradition of using special masters to 
enforce judgments, it raised doubt about the power of the special 
master to act beyond essentially ministerial tasks. In particular, 
the task of interpreting and applying a consent decree to contested 
facts was held by the Court of Appeals to be beyond the statute's 
power--at least where the District Court did not reserve to 
itself de novo review of the special master's determination. 
Microsoft II, 147 F.3d at 953-56.
    This narrow view of a special master's power was a surprise to 
many. It may well interfere with the ability of District Courts to 
utilize masters in highly technical or complex cases. This Committee 
may well need to consider whether more expansive authority should be 
granted the District Courts. Especially in the context of highly 
technical cases, a properly appointed master can provide invaluable 
assistance to the District Court judge.
    These limitations would not, of course, restrict the appointment 
of a master in any case to which the parties agreed. And it may well 
be that the simplest way for Microsoft to achieve credibility in the 
context of this case would be for it to agree to the appointment of 
a master with substantial

[[Page 30220]]

authority to interpret and apply the decree, subject to de novo 
review by the District Court. Such a master should be well trained 
in the law, but also possess a significant degree of technical 
knowledge. But beyond the particulars of this case, it may well be 
better if the District Court had greater power to call upon such 
assistance if such the Court deemed such assistance necessary.



MTC-00033734

Consumer Federation of America
STATEMENT OF DR, MARK N. COOPER On THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK 
TO THE FUTURE Before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES 
SENATE, December 12, 2001
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
    My name is Dr. Mark Cooper. I am Director of Research of the 
Consumer Federation of America. The Consumer Federation of America 
is the nation's largest consumer advocacy group, composed of two 
hundred and seventy state and local affiliates representing 
consumer, senior citizen, low-income, labor, farm, public power, and 
cooperative organizations, with more than fifty million individual 
members.
    I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 
This hearing on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look To the 
Future'' focuses public policy attention on exactly the right 
questions. What should the software market look like? Does the Court 
of Appeals'' ruling provide an adequate legal foundation for 
creating that market? Is it worth the effort? What specific remedies 
are necessary to get the job done?
    Our analysis of the Microsoft case over four years leads us to 
clear answers. We reject the claim that consumers must accept 
monopoly in the software industry. Real competition can work in the 
software market, but it wil1 never get a chance if Microsoft is not 
forced to abandon the pervasive pattern of anticompetitive practices 
it has used to dominate product line after product line.
    The antitrust case has revealed a massive violation of the 
antitrust laws. A unanimous decision of the Appeals Court points the 
way to restoring competition.
    The public interest demands that we try.
    The proposed Microsoft-Department of Justice settlement is far 
too weak to accomplish that goal. The litigating states'' 
remedial proposals are now the only chance that consumers have of 
enjoying the benefits of competition in the industry.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Consumer Case Against Microsoft (October 1998); 
The Consumer Cost of the Microsoft Monopoly.'' 510 Billion and 
Counting (January 1999); Economic Evidence in the Antitrust Trial: 
The Microsoft Defense Stumbles Over the Facts (March 18, 1999); 
Facts Law and Antitrust Remedies.'' Time for Microsoft to be 
Held Accountable for its Monopoly Abuses (May 2000) (Attachment A); 
Mark Cooper, ``Antitrust as Consumer Protection in the New 
Economy: Lessons from the Microsoft Case,'' Hasting Law 
Journal, 52 (April 2001) (see Attachment B); Windows XP/.NET: 
Microsoft's Expanding Monopoly, How it Can Harm Consumers and What 
the Courts Must Do to Preserve Competition (September 26, 2001) (see 
Attachment C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Real Competition In The Software Industry Is The Goal
    The defenders of the Microsoft monopoly say that consumers 
cannot hope for competition within software markets because this is 
a winner-take-all, new economy industry. In this product space 
companies always win the whole market or most of it, so anything 
goes. In fact, Microsoft's expert witness has written in a scholarly 
journal that: ``With ``winner take most'' markets... 
[If] there can be only one healthy survivor, the incumbent market 
leader must exclude its competition or die... There is no useful 
non-exclusion baseline, which the traditional test for predation 
requires... As to intent, in a struggle for survival that will have 
only one winner, any firm must exclude rivals to survive .... In a 
winner take most market, evidence that A intends to kill B merely 
confirms A's desire to survive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Richard Schmalensee, ``Antitrust Issues in 
Schumpeterian Industries,'' 90 American Economic Review, 
192-194 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By that standard, if a monopolist burned down the facilities of 
a potential competitor, it might be guilty of arson and other civil 
crimes, but it would not be guilty of violating the antitrust laws. 
Consumers should be thankful that both the trial court and the 
Appeals Court flatly rejected this theory of the inevitability of 
monopoly and upheld the century old standard of competition.
    In fact, the products against which Microsoft has directed its 
most violent anticompetitive attacks represent the best form of 
traditional competition--compatible products that operate on 
top of existing platforms seeking to gain market share by enhancing 
functionality and expanding consumer choice.\3\ Microsoft fears 
these products and seeks to destroy them, not compete against them, 
precisely because they represent uncontrolled compatibility, rampant 
interoperability and, over the long-term,, potential alternatives to 
the Windows operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mark Cooper, Antitrust and Consumer Protection, pp. 
863-880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



MTC-00033734

Consumer Federation of America
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK N. COOPER On THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT: A LOOK 
TO THE FUTURE Before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES 
SENATE, December 12, 2001
    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
    My name is Dr. Mark Cooper. I am Director of Research of the 
Consumer Federation of *.america. The Consumer Federation of America 
is the nation's largest consumer advocacy group, composed of two 
hundred and seventy state and local affiliates representing 
consumer, senior citizen, low-income, labor, farm, public power, and 
cooperative organizations, with more than fifty million individual 
members.
    I greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 
This hearing on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look To the 
Future'' focuses public policy attention on exactly the right 
questions. What should the software market look like? Does the Court 
of Appeals'' ruling provide an adequate legal foundation for 
creating that market? Is it worth the effort? What specific remedies 
are necessary to get the job done? Our analysis of the Microsoft 
case over four years leads us to clear answers.
    We reject the claim that consumers must accept monopoly in the 
software industry. Real competition can work in the software market, 
but it will never get a chance if Microsoft is not forced to abandon 
the pervasive pattern of anticompetitive practices it has used to 
dominate product line after product line.
    The antitrust case has revealed a massive violation of the 
antitrust laws. A unanimous decision of the Appeals Court points the 
way to restoring competition.
    The public interest demands that we try.
    The proposed Microsoft-Department of Justice settlement is far 
too weak to accomplish that goal. The litigating states'' 
remedial proposals are now the only chance that consumers have of 
enjoying the benefits of competition in the industry.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Consumer Case Against Microsoft (October 1998); 
The Consumer Cost of the Microsoft Monopoly.'' $10 Billion and 
Counting (January. 1999); Economic Evidence in the Antitrust Trial: 
The Microsoft Defense Stumbles Over the Facts (March 18, 1999); 
Facts Law and Antitrust Remedies: Time for Microsoft to be Held 
Accountable for its Monopoly Abuses (May 2000) (Attachment A); Mark 
Cooper, ``Antitrust as Consumer Protection in the New Economy: 
Lessons from the Microsoft Case,'' Hasting Law Journal, 52 
(April 2001) (see Attachment B); Windows XP/.NET: Microsoft's 
Expanding Monopoly, How it Can Harm Consumers and What the Courts 
Must Do to Preserve Competition (September 26, 2001) (see Attachment 
C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Real Competition In The Software Industry. Is The Goal
    The defenders of the Microsoft monopoly say that consumers 
cannot hope for competition within software markets because this is 
a winner-take-all, new economy industry. In this product space 
companies always win the whole market or most of it, so anything 
goes. In fact, Microsoft's expert witness has written in a scholarly 
journal that: With ``winner take most'' markets... [If] 
there can be only one healthy survivor, the incumbent market leader 
must exclude its competition or die... There is no useful non-
exclusion baseline, which the traditional test for predation 
requires... As to intent, in a struggle for survival that will have 
only one ....inner, any firm must exclude rivals to survive .... In 
a winner take most market, evidence that A intends to kill B merely 
confirms A's desire to survive.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Richard Schmalensee, ``Antitrust Issues in 
Schumpeterian Industries,'' 90 American Economic Review 
192-194 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By that standard, if a monopolist burned down the facilities of 
a potential competitor, it might be guilty of arson and other civil 
crimes, but it would not be guilty of violating the antitrust laws. 
Consumers should be thankful that both the trial court and the 
Appeals Court flatly rejected this theory of the inevitability of 
monopoly and upheld the century old standard of competition.
    In fact, the products against which Microsoft has directed its 
most violent anticompetitive attacks represent the best form of 
traditional competition--compatible products that operate on 
top of existing

[[Page 30221]]

platforms seeking to gain market share by enhancing functionality 
and expanding consumer choice.\3\ Microsoft fears these products and 
seeks to destroy them, not compete against them, precisely because 
they represent uncontrolled compatibility, rampant interoperability 
and, over the long-term, potential alternatives to the Windows 
operating system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Mark Cooper, Antitrust and Consumer Protection, pp. 
863-880.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EMBARGOED UNTIL 10:00 AM. WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 12. 2001 
Association for Competitive Technology TESTIMONY OF MR. JONATHAN 
ZUCK, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION FOR COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGY (ACT) BEFORE 
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, UNITED STATES SENATE, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 
12, 2001, 160 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC 20510
    ACT, 1413 K Street, NW, 12(th) Floor, Washington, DC 20005, 
(202) 331 2130. www.ACTonline.org

INTRODUCTION

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am 
Jonathan Zuck, President of the Association for Competitive 
Technology, or ACT. On behalf of our member companies, it is my 
sincere honor to testify before this committee today. As a 
professional software developer and technology educator, I am 
grateful for this opportunity and appreciate greatly your interest 
in learning more about the effects of the proposed settlement 
entered into by the United States Department of Justice (DO J), nine 
state attorneys general and Microsoft on our industry. ACT is a 
national, Information Technology (IT) industry group, founded by 
entrepreneurs and representing the full spectrum of technology 
firms. Our members include household names such as Microsoft, e-Bay 
and Orbitz. However, the vast majority of our members are small and 
midsize business, including software developers, IT trainers, 
technology consultants, dot-corns, integrators and hardware 
developers located in your states. The majority of ACT members 
cannot hire lawyers and lobbyists or fly to Washington to have their 
views heard. Therefore, they look to ACT to represent their 
interests. To be sure, to meet the needs of our broad constituency, 
we don't always agree with our members, even Microsoft, on some 
policy issues.
    I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for the plight of 
these small technology companies, because I spent over fifteen years 
running similar companies. During this time, I've managed as many as 
300 developers, taught over a hundred classes, and worked on some 
interesting projects. I was responsible for a loan evaluation 
application for Freddie Mac, an automated Fitness Report application 
for the Navy and a Regional Check Authentication system for the 
Department of Treasury. I have built software on multiple platforms 
include DOS. DR-DOS, OS/2 and Windows using tools from many vendors 
including Microsoft, Oracle, Sybase, Powersoft, IBM, Borland and 
others. I remain active as a technologist and last year designed a 
system to get to your corporate data wirelessly. I have also 
delivered keynotes and other presentations at technical conferences 
around the world.
    While ACT members vary in their size and businesses, they share 
a common desire to maintain the competitive character of today's 
vibrant technology sector that has been responsible for America's 
``new economy.'' Unfortunately, for the last three years, 
the tens of thousands of small businesses in the IT industry, have 
been virtually ignored during the government's investigation and 
prosecution of Microsoft.
    I believe the settlement, on balance, is good not only for the 
bulk of the IT industry, but for consumers as well. Voters also see 
the value in the settlement. Voter Consumer Research conducted polls 
of 1,000 eligible voters last month in Utah and Kansas that are 
quite telling. In Utah and Kansas, when asked if their state 
attorney general should pursue the case after the DOJ settlement had 
been reached, the respondents said, by a 6 to 1 margin, that they 
should not.
    As one of the ``techies'' on this panel, I look 
forward to getting into more ``real life'' effects of the 
proposed settlement to prove this point.
    With that backdrop, my testimony today is focused on describing 
how the settlement will foster competition for thousands of 
America's small IT companies and how that, in turn, will benefit 
consumers.

THE STATE OF OUR INDUSTRY

    Before we discuss life in a post Microsoft settlement world, I 
must speak to present-day competition and innovation. I want to 
begin by stating unequivocally that, counter to the protestations of 
some ``experts,'' competition in the IT industry is alive 
and well. One demonstrable example is amount of capital investment 
by Venture Capitalists (VCs) and where that money is headed. Despite 
the recent downturn, VCs are still looking for the next 
``billion dollar deal.'' I know because I have worked with 
many of them. I won't get into the negative impact this 
``homerun or nothing'' strategy has had on our industry 
but suffice it to say, billion dollar deals do not come from 
investing in mature markets with limited growth potential and large 
existing players. Billion dollar deals only come from investing in 
new markets with unlimited growth potential and those do not include 
office productivity software market or even the general PC software 
market. Indeed, a recent survey of VC's conducted by the DEMOletter, 
showed that nearly a third of those surveyed will invest over $100 
million in start-ups in 2002 and that nearly 20 per cent are 
planning to invest up to $250 million)\1\ The sectors of the IT 
industry receiving this money include software and digital media.\2\ 
These are precisely the sectors that would benefit from this 
settlement, Suggestions that opposing the settlement would encourage 
VC's to change their stripes are ridiculous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DEMOletter, December 200 I, at 5-6.
    \2\ 2 Id., at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fact, the information technology world is experiencing a 
shift away from desktop computing and toward other devices such as 
personal digital assistants (PDA's), cell phones, set top boxes/game 
consoles, web terminals and powerful servers that connect them all. 
In all these growth markets, competition is very strong even though 
Microsoft is present. As of the third quarter of this year, more 
than 52 percent of all PDA's were shipped with the Palm operating 
system while only 18 percent carded a Microsoft operating system 
according to Gartner. With cell phone manufacturers rushing to 
integrate PDA functionality, there is are several large players 
including Symbian (a joint venture between Nokia, Motorola, 
Ericsson, Matsushita [Panasonic], and Psion), Palm, Linux and 
Research in Motion's Blackberry operating system. In the game 
console/set-top box arenas, Microsoft is just entering the picture 
with established companies like Sony and Nintendo standing on large 
installed user bases.
    The server market is probably the best example of this growing 
competition. According to IDC, Linux's worldwide market share of new 
and upgraded operating systems for servers was 27 percent in 2000. 
It was second only to Microsoft, which stood at 42 percent. IDC 
predicts predicted Linux's market share will expand to 41 percent by 
2005, while Microsoft's will only grow to 46 percent. Things should 
only become more competitive with IBM putting a billion dollars into 
its Linux push this year. The vigorous competition in this space in 
proves in the absence of government intervention, companies like 
Linux can thrive.

BENEFITS OF THE SETTLEMENT

    As the members of the Committee are doubtlessly aware, on 
November 2, 2001 the DOJ and Microsoft tentatively agreed on a 
settlement (or consent decree) designed to end the federal antitrust 
suit. Soon thereafter, nine states attorneys general signed off on a 
revised settlement. The proposed settlement succeeds in striking a 
difficult compromise between the ``drastically altered'' 
finding of liability adopted by the Court of Appeals and the wishes 
of Microsoft competitors and critics for crippling sanctions against 
the company.\3\ Remarkably, the negotiators have worked out a 
settlement proposal that, while entirely satisfying to none, 
includes something for everyone. A number of Microsoft competitors 
and their advocates have suggested that this agreement is flawed in 
that it ``does not prevent Microsoft from leveraging its 
monopoly into other markets.'' This argument is based on an 
unfounded fear that Microsoft will attempt to monopolize other 
markets such as instant messaging and digital media. Undermining 
this argument is the fact that the Court of Appeals found 
unanimously that Microsoft did not use its monopoly in the browser 
(or middleware) market.\4\ The bottom line is that the settlement 
was focused on addressing the allegedly anticompetitive conduct of 
the past and preventing similar conduct in the future. It is 
entirely consistent with the basic tenet

[[Page 30222]]

of antitrust law, which is to protect consumers and competition, not 
competitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001) 
at 102.
    \4\ The Court of Appeals noted ``Because plaintiffs 
have not carried their burden on either prong, [of an attempted 
monopolization analysis] we reverse without remand.''/d., at 
63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With that understanding, it is important to address the benefits 
the industry and consumer will derive from implementation of the 
proposed settlement. ACT believes that the benefits of the 
settlement can be classified as follows:
    1. Increased flexibility for Original Equipment Manufacturers 
(OEMs)
    2. Increased flexibility for third party, IT companies
    3. Greater consumer choice
    4. Effective enforcement
    I will discuss each benefit in turn, paying particular attention 
to the positive effects on competition in our industry.
    1. Increased flexibility for Original Equipment Manufacturers 
(OEMs) OEMs play a pivotal role in ``supply chain'' of 
delivering a rich computing experience for consumers. They provide 
independent software vendors (ISVs), many of whom are small IT 
companies, a valuable conduit by which to sell their wares directly 
to consumers by vying for space on the computer desktop. Thus, it is 
critical that OEMs have the flexibility to meet market demands by 
negotiating with ISVs for this type of placement. This practice is 
known as ``monetizing the desktop'' and is consistent with 
market-based competition. Under the proposed settlement, OEMs will 
have the flexibility to develop, distribute, use, sell, or license 
any software that competes with Windows or Microsoft 
``middleware\5\'' without restrictions or any kind of 
retaliation from Microsoft.\6\6 Reinforcing this flexibility, the 
settlement prohibits Microsoft from even entering into agreements 
that obligate OEMs to any exclusive or fixed-percentage 
arrangements.\7\ This allows OEMs to negotiate with an array of ISVs 
through the use of any number of incentives. Moreover, OEMs obtain 
some control over the desktop space for such things as icons and 
shortcuts.\8\ Another critical element allowing the OEMs to create a 
competitive playing field is that they have the ability to have non-
Microsoft operating systems (e.g., Linux) and other Internet Access 
Providers (IAP) offerings (e.g., alternative Internet connections 
such as AOL) launch at boot-up.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Microsoft Middleware Product'' is a 
defined term, while inconsistent with common industry usage, has the 
meaning of ``the functionality provided by Internet Explorer, 
Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine, Windows Media Player, Windows 
Messenger, Outlook Express and their successors in a Windows 
Operating System Product.'' Revised Proposed Final Judgment, 
Section VI.K.
    \6\ Id., Section III.A.
    \7\ Id., Section III.G.
    \8\ Id., Section III.C.
    \9\ Id., Section III.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Increased flexibility for third party IT companies Like OEMs, 
ISVs and Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs) gain the flexibility to 
develop, distribute, use, sell, or license any software that 
competes with Windows or Microsoft middleware without restrictions 
or any kind of retaliation from Microsoft.\10\ The importance of 
this fact cannot be overstated. ISVs and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id., Section III.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------



MTC-00033734--0146

    IHVs, especially the thousands of small and mid-size companies 
in these categories, make up a bulk of the IT industry and will be 
able to utilize this flexibility to innovate and deliver 
``consumer critical'' products such as instant messaging 
and digital media to consumers.
    The ISVs and IHVs will obtain advance disclosure of Windows 
APIs, communications protocols, which ,,',,ill increase the 
quantity, and quality, of competitive product offerings.\11\ As with 
OEMs, Microsoft will be barred from thwarting competition by 
entering into agreements that obligate ISVs, IHVs, LAPs, or ICPs to 
any exclusive or fixed-percentage arrangements.\12\ It should be 
noted that the settlement restricts some freedoms in crafting 
contracts with Microsoft, and thus may discourage some companies 
that might otherwise like to sign on to ``dance'' with 
Microsoft. However, it also protects other companies from any 
efforts by Microsoft to prevent them from teaming up with 
Microsoft's competitors like Sun Microsystems or AOL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id., Sections III.D., III.E.
    \12\ Id., Sections III.G., III.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Greater consumer choice

    Nothing is as important to our industry as giving consumers, or 
end users, the freedom to choose what products and services they 
want or need. To this end, the settlement ensures that consumers 
will have the ability to enable or remove access to Microsoft or 
non-Microsoft middleware, or substitute a non-Microsoft middleware 
product for a Microsoft middleware product.\13\ Microsoft's 
detractors have generated much commotion with the notion that 
removal of icons or ``automatic invocations'' is not 
enough, and that to give consumers ``real'' choice, 
underlying code would have to be removed. This is nonsensical for 
two reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. III.H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, it is a known fact that removal of visible access (e.g., 
an icon) to middleware or an application is a very effective means 
of getting the end user to forget about it. Think about how many 
icons reside on the average user's desktop that serve to 
``remind'' him of what product to use for a certain task. 
It is a simple case of ``out of sight, out of mind.'' 
Second, it is also a known fact that removal of the underlying does 
nothing to enhance consumer choice, and actually could destabilize 
the platform, increasing costs to consumer software developers who 
could no longer count on programming interfaces within the Windows 
operating system. The net result of these provisions is that 
consumers will be in the position to pick the products the), 
consider to best meet their needs--whether it be downloading 
music, sharing pictures over the Web, or chatting with friends via 
instant messaging applications.
    Another myth propagated by Microsoft's competitors is that 
Microsoft gets to reset the desktop to its preferred configuration 
14 days after the consumer buys it no matter what steps the OEM or 
the consumer have actually taken to try to exercise the choice to 
use a non-Microsoft product. This is absolutely false. The desktop 
would not be reset and consumers will always retain choice. For 
example, consumers can choose among the OEM's configuration, their 
own configuration and Microsoft's configuration.

4. Effective Enforcement

    The final dement of the settlement that will ensure competition 
is the enforcement provisions. Microsoft must license its 
intellectual property to the extent necessary for OEMs and other IT 
companies to exercise any of the flexibility provided in the 
agreement.\14\ In an unprecedented move, the decree creates a 
jointly appointed Technical Committee (TC) to monitor 
compliance,\15\ The TC will have three members and unspecified 
staff, and be granted unfettered access to Microsoft staff and 
documents. While the TC is a better enforcement mechanism than 
having to apply to a court for each software design element, it is 
not without some flaws. For example, there are no restrictions on 
how the TC can be utilized as a tool by Microsoft's competitors to 
delay shipment of an operating system or middleware product. While 
this may cause Microsoft some heartburn if it is used for such 
delay, it will be a fatal malady to the thousands of small and mid-
size ISVs, IHVs, training firms and consultants that depend on a 
timely product launch. I am not a lawyer, so I can only propose a 
practical solution to this problem. Perhaps the competitors (or 
anyone else with the view that Microsoft is not complying with the 
consent decree) should be required to bring their problems to the TC 
at specified times during the development life cycle. This would 
prevent ``last minute'' delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id., Section III.I.
    \15\ Id., Section IV.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Microsoft is required to implement an internal 
Compliance Officer to be responsible for handling complaints and 
compliance issues.\16\ This is yet another safeguard that aggrieved 
parties can use to ensure Microsoft's compliance with the consent 
decree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id., Section IV.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unfortunately these provisions are not enough to satiate some 
bent on seeing that this settlement never gets approved. For 
example, the)'' question why the settlement lasts for only 5 
years rather than the customary 10. This inquiry fails to 
acknowledge the realities of the IT industry and the speed at which 
we innovate. One need only think about the number and types of 
products that have emerged since 1998 to see why applying static 
conduct restrictions are out of step with our industry and provide 
no added value. Further, I believe seeking extended application of 
the settlement only exposes a bias against Microsoft Because of the 
significant impact on our industry, I must also address the 
additional remedies proposed by the nine state attorneys general who 
did not sign the consent decree. While their aim to ``restore 
competition'' is a valid and important antitrust 
principle--as long as it is limited to the elimination of 
competitive barriers--their proposal ignores the Court of 
Appeals ruling and runs counter to established antitrust 
jurisprudence. The DOJ settlement agreement was wise to avoid the 
dangerous temptation to redesign and regulate market outcomes. I'll 
point out two

[[Page 30223]]

defects of the state's proposal. First, requiring that Windows 
``must carry'' Java does nothing for consumers who can 
download it with one click and only serves to thwart competition by 
giving Sun Microsystems a special government-mandated monopoly with 
which other middleware companies will have to compete. While I 
believe ``must-carry'' provisions are inherently 
anticompetitive, if the attorneys general were really trying to 
stand on principle they would have to ask for the same provisions 
for other middleware providers as well. Second, requiring Microsoft 
to port its Office product to Linux is tantamount to making it a 
``ward of the state.'' There are already several office 
productivity suites available to users of Linux and some are even 
free. It would stand to reason that if attorneys general are 
actually interested in removing an{time} , ``applications 
barrier to entry'' that may exist, they should force the 
developers of ALL popular software products to port them to Linux. 
It is clear that from the extreme nature of these proposals that the 
settlement must encompass all reasonable mechanisms to restore 
competition. The respondents to the Voter Consumer Research polls 
mentioned above also question the need for the far-reaching remedies 
that would hamper Microsoft's ability to innovate. In Utah for 
example, nearly 70% of voters believe that Microsoft's products have 
helped consumers and over 80% of these voters feel that that 
Microsoft has benefited the computer industry. These numbers beg the 
question: Where's the harm that would justify the nine state's harsh 
remedies.

Conclusion

    For ACT member companies, the IT industry and for me, it has 
been a very long three and a half years. This settlement reflects a 
balanced resolution to this litigation and a welcome end to the 
uncertainty that has hung over our industry at a time when certainty 
is what we need most. It addresses the anticompetitive actions 
articulated by a unanimous Court of Appeals. I believe Assistant 
Attorney Charles James when he said ``This settlement.., has 
the advantages of immediacy and certainty.''\17\17 It my 
sincere hope that the District Court will approve the settlement at 
the conclusion of the public comment period. There is no doubt in my 
mind that it is in the public interest to do so. Again, I thank the 
Committee for the opportunity to include the views of ACT's member 
companies at this important hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Remarks of Assistant Attorney Charles James, 
Department of Justice press conference, November 2, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Testimony of Matthew J. Szulik, President and CEO, Red Hat, Inc., to 
the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate, December 12, 
2001
    Good morning.
    I would like to thank the members of the committee for allowing 
me to contribute my views on a topic that I feel is of vital 
importance to the future our nation. I stand before you today as 
Winston Churchill said, ``only to fight while there is a 
chance, so we don't have to fight when there is none.'' Through 
your actions, members of the committee can affect a remedy that many 
members of the growing, global technical community hope will restore 
balance and inspire competitiveness in a networked society free of 
monopolistic practices.
    I stand before you today as a representative of the open source 
community. And as the CEO of Red Hat, Inc., generally regarded as 
the most successful company that sells and supports open source 
software. The Red Hat Linux operating system software we sell is 
created by a global community of volunteers. Volunteers who share 
their creation of intellectual property. The basis for their work is 
an open license that requires improvements to the technology be 
shared with others. Programmers submit their software code, their 
creations to the scrutiny of a very critical community of peers. The 
best code wins and is included in the next version of the software. 
This open communication strikes me as so perfectly American. I 
envision the early leaders of this country drawing up the tenets of 
our constitution in much the same way--in the open, in pursuit 
of a solution that is fair and of benefit to all.
    Some have called this the technology equivalent of a barn-
raising. Through this approach Linux software has grown, improved 
and become one of the most stable, cost-effective operating systems 
in the world. It continues to improve every day.
    The values and practices of Red Hat are in most ways 
antithetical to those of the monopolist I am here to reference.
    Much testimony has been provided on the practices by the 
monopolist, which in my view have placed a technical and financial 
stranglehold on the technology industry. Mr. McNealy and Mr. 
Barksdale and others that have come before me have done a good job 
of presenting the issues to the committee. I support their 
conclusions that the software industry needs government 
intervention. I support their requests for strong enforcement of 
antitrust laws.
    I would like to reaffirm their case, that innovation will occur 
when there is a competitive environment free of monopolistic 
practices.
    Open source software arose because of a lack of alternatives 
that allowed the individual to choose the best tool for the job. 
Over the past 5 years, projects created by Red Hat and the open 
source community have become solutions of choice in areas of 
standards-based Internet software development, areas that the 
monopolist does not yet control.
    The growth of the Linux operating system is an example of this 
acceptance. The Apache web server is another, it now holds a market-
leading position. However, the Internet browser, desktop operating 
system and office productivity software are areas that have 
continued to be influenced by one vendor alone.
    One of the reasons I am. so deeply troubled by the consent 
decree in this case is that it seems to run counter to things that 
are fundamental to our identity as Americans. We value fair play, 
ethical competition, abiding by the rules and fostering innovation. 
The consent decree throws all of this away. It acknowledges that my 
competitor has broken the law; that through these violations it has 
built one of the most formidable businesses in the world. Yet the 
consent decree does little to prevent future misconduct. I feel if 
the antitrust laws are not enforced, the will and spirit of the true 
innovators will suffer.
    Lengthy legal critiques of the consent decree are already on 
record. In the interest of time I will not subject you to more this 
morning. I am sure you've heard enough legal arguments in 
considering this topic. Rather, I want to make a few key points:
    First, their growing monopoly power has seriously warped the 
technology market. Now that my competitor is a convicted monopolist, 
the world can see in the public record what those in technology 
companies have known for years: they don't compete fairly, they use 
their dominance in one market to dominate others, and they stifle 
innovation in the name of competition. The only way to stop 
this--to restore fairness to the market--is a settlement 
of this case that denies the monopolist the fruits of its past 
actions and provides remedial measures on the monopolist for its 
violations of the law.
    Second, the consent decree as it stands today, falls far short 
of this requirement. Given the monopolist's history of skating up to 
the edge, or over the edge, in not fully complying with prior 
settlements, it will take very strong measures to change their 
behavior. In the words of Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas F. 
Reilly, commenting on the consent decree: ``Five minutes after 
any agreement is signed with Microsoft, they'll be thinking of how 
to violate the agreement. They're predators. They crush their 
competition. They crush new ideas. They stifle innovation. That's 
what they do.''
    Microsoft is deeply concerned about open source software and has 
already making overtures on how it will use dominance rather than 
technical expertise to crush it.
    The CEO of the monopolist said, quote, ``Linux is a cancer 
that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything 
it touches.''
    The head of the monopolist's Windows Platform Group has similar 
beliefs: He said publicly, quote, ``Open source is an 
intellectual property destroyer. I can't imagine something that 
could be worse than this for the software business.'' He goes 
on further to say, ``I'm an American, I believe in the American 
way. I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't 
think we've done enough education of policy-makers to understand the 
threat.''
    In my view, the consent decree should create a level playing 
field between Windows and Linux. Because of their comments, and 
their past actions, I believe the current consent decree is not 
strong enough. They will circumvent it.
    Third, we have all heard of the Digital Divide. It's the gap in 
information and computing access between the haves and have nots in 
our society. As many states struggle with declining revenues, I 
believe these shortfalls will have a material impact on the public 
funding of K-12 and higher education. The path to the development of 
an

[[Page 30224]]

information economy can not be limited to a sole supplier, who in my 
view has seen education up to this point, relative to its financial 
position as a market--not as a responsibility. I believe the 
lack of choices and high recurring costs is in part responsible for 
this growing chasm between the two Americas.
    I'm involved with North Carolina Central University--an 
historically black university that cannot afford the monopolist's 
restrictive licenses and forced upgrades. I see this sad experience 
in schools throughout our country. Walk the halls of schools in East 
Roxbury, MA or Snow Hill, NC and question how we can expect, as a 
nation, to improve the future for our youth when schools must 
allocate 30-40% of their IT budget for software and hardware 
upgrades. Provided choice, these same dollars could be put into 
teacher training and acquiring more technology. The Chinese 
government understands this. The French and German governments as 
well. They have stated that proprietary software will not be used to 
develop government and educational infrastructure.
    But the monopolist has more than 90% of the desktop operating 
system market and more than 70% of the Internet browser market. What 
choices do our schools have? What choices do our citizens have? As 
the monopolist extends its monopoly into additional markets, largely 
unfettered by the legal system and apparently immune to the 
consequences of their actions-- the Digital Divide widens.
    Biologists know that an unbalanced ecosystem, one dominated by a 
single species, is more vulnerable to collapse. I think we're seeing 
this today. Under the consent decree, it will continue and probably 
get worse.
    In America, history has taught us that there is no mechanism 
more logical and efficient and than a free and open market. Our 
competitor's illegal monopolistic actions have significantly reduced 
the open market in information technology. I believe that in extreme 
cases like this, it is the role of the government to step in and 
restore balance.
    Thank you.
Testimony of Mitchell E. Kertzman, Chief Executive Officer, Liberate 
Technologies before the United States Senate, Committee on the 
Judiciary, Wednesday, December 12, 2001
    Introduction
    Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch, and other members of the Committee, 
thank you for the chance to speak on this critical topic. The 
Proposed Final Judgment is woefully inadequate. It is a backward-
looking document that fails to prevent Microsoft from abusing its 
monopoly position to increase costs and stifle new 
technologies--not just for personal computers, but also for new 
technologies like digital televisions, cellular phones, game 
consoles, and personal digital assistants. Microsoft has already 
announced its intent to expand its dominance beyond PC operating 
systems, servers, and applications to new devices and even personal 
information via its ``eHome'' and ``Passport'' 
initiatives. According to comments made by Microsoft President Steve 
Ballmer just last week, Microsoft is pursuing a ``broader 
concept'' for its client devices like the xBox and set-top box 
software. In his words, ``[T]here's a bigger play we hope to 
get over time'' by annexing all of these devices into the 
Microsoft empire. Microsoft's own demos and white papers show that 
it plans to establish its operating system as the software that 
would collect information streaming into the home and distribute it 
to each new device. Microsoft has used and will continue to use its 
monopoly over desktop operating systems to deny competition in each 
new computing market as it evolves: first desktop applications, then 
internet browsers and servers, and now alternative devices ranging 
from smart phones to television set-top boxes. By dealing only with 
a narrow category of Windows products, and failing even there to 
impose any significant restrictions, the Proposed Final Judgment 
fails to check Microsoft's demonstrated willingness to exploit its 
power over the operating system in order to dominate other market 
segments.

Background

    By way of personal background, I am the CEO of Liberate 
Technologies, a company making middleware software that enables 
interactive and enhanced television. Before joining Liberate, I was 
chairman and CEO of Sybase, then one of the world's ten largest 
independent software companies, founder and CEO of Powersoft, an 
enterprise software company, and chairman of both the American 
Electronics Association and the Massachusetts Software Council. I am 
also currently a director of CNET, Handspring, and TechNet.
    Throughout my career, I have both partnered with and competed 
against Microsoft. I have been impressed by the power of its 
dominant platforms, but also concerned about the abuses that 
resulted from that dominance. I have seen Microsoft consistently use 
its power to block competition in new markets through at least three 
types of misconduct that the PFJ does nothing to deter: (1) 
Preventing original equipment manufacturers from supporting new 
technologies; (2) Tying commercial restrictions to investments; and 
(3) Blocking non-Windows-based industry standards.

(1) Preventing Original Equipment Manufacturers from Supporting New 
Technologies

    My current company, Liberate, was originally Network Computer 
Incorporated, promoting computers and software that would operate 
via a network to significantly reduce the cost of computing. This 
model, like the Netscape browser, threatened the dominance of the 
Windows platform. But because the manufacturers of many new devices 
also manufacture desktop PCs, Microsoft was able to exploit its 
desktop OEM relationships to discourage competition. For example, 
Network Computer had an active relationship with Digital Equipment 
Corporation to develop a device running our software. Microsoft and 
Mr. Gates simply threatened the CEO of DEC that they would port 
Microsoft's NT operating system to DEC hardware only if DEC stopped 
development of a network computer, an offer DEC couldn't refuse. 
It's clear, and the courts have reaffirmed, that a monopoly simply 
cannot engage in this kind of conduct.
    Such tactics forced us to exit this business, and the price of 
PC operating systems and applications remains as high as ever when 
all other computing costs have plummeted.
    The Proposed Final Judgment focuses only on Windows products for 
desktop PCs and includes broad and ambiguous exceptions to its 
limits on retaliation. These loopholes would apparently let 
Microsoft get away with the kind of misconduct it perpetrated 
against Network Computer. The result would be to block or delay the 
development of new competitive devices and technologies. The remedy 
proposed by the non-settling states would, on the other hand, 
prevent Microsoft from engaging in this type of retaliation and 
unfairly extending its desktop monopoly to a wider array of software 
and devices.

(2) Tying Commercial Restrictions to Investments

    Second, in investing the considerable proceeds of its desktop 
monopoly in new markets, Microsoft has extracted, or attempted to 
extract, exclusive or near-exclusive commercial distribution 
arrangements to block out competitors. In the interactive television 
industry alone, Microsoft has invested billions of dollars with 
leading cable and satellite networks. As recently as this week, 
Microsoft has again aggressively pursued this strategy with leading 
operators both here and in Europe. The strings attached to these 
investments often require networks to buy Microsoft's middleware, 
making it difficult or impossible for them to buy competitive 
products.
    Microsoft's money is a heavy thumb on the scale, biasing choices 
of future technologies in its favor. As new-generation computers and 
small consumer devices often rely on networks for their 
interconnections, these investments in network companies set the 
stage for continued dominance of these new platforms as they evolve.
    Again, the PFJ fails to even address the issue of such 
restrictive dealings outside the scope of desktop products. In 
contrast, the remedies filed last week by the non-settling states, 
while not barring new investments, would at least require that 
Microsoft give 60 days notice to permit a review of anti-competitive 
effects.

(3) Refusing to Support Non-Windows-Based Industry, Standards

    Microsoft has also abused its monopoly position by blocking 
industry-wide standards essential to the evolution of a new 
generation of network-based devices. In our industry, Microsoft has 
undermined Java as a standard for digital television, lobbying 
heavily to prevent U.S. and European standards bodies from 
standardizing on Java. As you know, Java lets developers 
``write once, run anywhere'', permitting content to run 
across a wide variety of platforms rather than just on Microsoft's 
proprietary code.
    As a second prong of this strategy to block, co-opt, or 
``embrace and extend'' standards, Microsoft has refused to 
join with other

[[Page 30225]]

technology companies in pooling its intellectual property, instead 
indicating that it will sue to block the implementation of standards 
wherever it can find a violation of one of its patents. Microsoft 
certainly has the right not to support a standard. However, they are 
exploiting their dominance in the PC market to distort standards 
elsewhere.
    Third, by removing the Java Virtual Machine from its PC 
operating systems while the JVM is common elsewhere, Microsoft 
discourages developers from creating new ``write-once, run-
anywhere'' content, undermines support for uniform standards, 
and drives developers to write to proprietary Microsoft platforms. 
It is clear that Microsoft's foot-dragging and affirmative 
interference has slowed the deployment of digital television in the 
United States. Cable companies and television manufacturers both say 
that a gating issue has been the lack of a definitive standard for 
digital television, a standard that Microsoft's tactics have delayed 
and undermined. Microsoft's approach stands in direct opposition to 
the clearly expressed will of Congress and the interests of all 
Americans interested in richer and more varied television 
programming.
    Yet again, the PFJ would do nothing to prevent these abuses. The 
remedies recently filed by the non-settling states--by making 
available Microsoft APIs and certain types of code, opening access 
to the personal identification data captured by Microsoft Passport, 
and requiring the distribution of the Java Virtual 
Machine--would promote technology interoperability and the 
development of universally beneficial standards while maintaining 
relatively open alternatives to Microsoft software and services.

Conclusion

    The PFJ is a disappointment. Disappointing because it is weaker 
than the facts and the law of the case support, and disappointing 
because it will not limit Microsoft's plans to dominate new markets 
in the same way it has dominated operating systems, applications, 
and servers in the past.
    I welcome this hearing, and hope that this Committee will 
continue to exercise vigorous oversight of this case to assure that 
the final outcome is in the best interests of American consumers.
Ralph Nader
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, DC 20036
December 11, 200!
Senator Patrick Leahy
Judiciary Committee
US Senate
Washington, DC
Via fax: 1.202,224.9516
    Dear Senator Leahy: This is a quick note to express my 
disappointment that I will not be among the panel members for the 
December 12, 2001 hearing on Microsoft. 3ames Love on our staff made 
a number of telephone calls to your Judiciary Committee staff asking 
that he or [be permitted to testify, beginning as soon as the 
hearings were first announced. As you may know, we played an 
instrumental role in 1997 in pushing the Department of Justice to 
bring this antitrust case, and hosted two key conferences that 
helped flame the discussions over the case and the proposed remedies 
(http://www.appraislng-microsoft.org). I am attaching also two 
letters .lames Love and I have recently sent regarding the 
government and private antitrust cases. Would you please include 
these letters in the printed hearing record. Thank you.
NO. 574 002
 Ralph .Nader
P.O. Box 193 1 2
Washington, DC 20036
James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
 Washington, DC 20036
November 5, 2001
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
333 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    Dear Judge Kollar-Kotelly,

Introduction

    Having examined the proposed consent final judgment for USA 
versus Microsoft, we offer the following initial comments. We note 
at the outset that the decision to push for a rapid negotiation 
appears to have placed the Department of Justice at a disadvantage, 
given Microsoft's apparently willingness to let this matter drag on 
for years, through different USDOJ antitrust chiefs, Presidents and 
judges. The proposal is obviously limited in terms of effectiveness 
by the desire to obtain a final order that is agreeable to 
Microsoft.
    We are disappointed of course that the court has moved :/way 
from a structural remedy, which we believe would require less 
dependence upon future enforcement efforts and good faith by 
Microsoft, and which would jump start a more competitive market for 
applications. Within the limits of a conduct-only remedy, we make 
the following observations.
    On the positive side, we find the proposed final order addresses 
important areas where Microsoft has abused its monopoly power, 
particularly in terms of its OF. OEM licensing practices and on the 
issue of using interoperability as a weapon against consumers of 
non-Microsoft products. There are, however, important areas where 
the interoperability remedies should lie stronger. For example, 
there is a need to have broader disclosure of file formats for 
popular office productivity and multimedia applications. Moreover, 
where Microsoft appears be given broad discretion to deploy 
intellectual property claims to avoid opening up its monopoly 
operating system where it will be needed the most, in terms of new 
interfaces and technologies. Moreover, the agreement appears to give 
Microsoft too many opportunities to Undermine the free software 
movement. We also find the agreement wanting in several other 
areas.. It is astonishing that the agreement fails to provide any 
penalty for Microsoft's past misdeeds, creating both the sense that 
Microsoft is escaping punishment because of its extraordinary 
political and economic power, and undermining the value of antitrust 
penalties as a deterrent. Second, the agreement does not adequately 
address the concerns about Microsoft's failure to abide by the 
spirit or the letter of previous agreements, offering a weak 
oversight regime that suffers in several specific, areas. Indeed, 
the proposed alternative dispute resolution far compliance with the 
agreement embraces many of the worst features of such systems, 
operating ``in secrecy, lacking independence, and open to undue 
influence from Microsoft.

OEM Licensing Remedies

    We were pleased that the proposed final order provides for non-
discriminatory, licensing of Windows to OEMs, and that these 
remedies include multiple boot PCs, substitution of non-Microsoft 
middleware, changes in the management of visible icons and other 
issues. These remedies would have been more effective if they would 
have been extended to Microsoft Office, the other key component of 
Microsoft's monopoly power in the PC client software market, and if 
they permitted the removal of Microsoft products. But nonetheless, 
they are pro-competitive, and do represent real benefits to 
consumers.

Interoperability Remedies

    Microsoft regularly punishes consumers who buy non-Microsoft 
products, or who fail to upgrade and repurchase newer versions of 
Microsoft: products, by designing Microsoft Windows or Office 
products to be incompatible or non-interoperable with competitor 
software, or even older versions of its own software. It is 
therefore good that the proposed final order would require Microsoft 
to address a wide range of interoperability remedies, including for 
example the disclosures of APIs for Windows and Microsoft middleware 
products, non-discriminatory access to communications protocols used 
for services, and non-discriminatory licensing of certain 
intellectual property rights for Microsoft middleware products. 
There are, however, many areas where these remedies may be limited 
by Micro. soft, and as is indicated by the record in this c .use, 
Microsoft can and does take advantage of any loopholes in contracts 
to cream barriers to competition and enhance and extend its monopoly 
power.

Special Concerns for Free Software Movement

    The provisions in J.l and 1.2..appear to give Microsoft too much 
flexibility in withholding information on ``security grounds, 
and to .provide Microsoft with the power to set unrealistic burdens 
on a rival's legitimate rights to obtain interoperability data. More 
generally, the provisions in D. regarding the sharing of technical 
information permit Microsoft to choose secrecy and limited 
disclosures over more openness. In particular, these clauses and 
others in the agreement do not reflect an appreciation for the 
importance of new software development models, including those 
``open source'' or ``free'' software development 
models which are now widely recognized as providing an important 
safeguard against Microsoft monopoly power, and upon which the 
Interact depends.
    The overall acceptance of Microsoft's limits on the sharing of 
technical information to the broader public is an important and in 
our view core flaw in the proposed

[[Page 30226]]

agreement. The agreement should require that this information be as 
freely available as possible, with a high burden on Microsoft to 
justify .secrecy. Indeed, there is ample evidence that Microsoft is 
focused on strategies to cripple the free software movement, which 
it publicly considers an important competitive threat. This is 
particularly true for software developed under the GNU Public 
License (GPL), which is used in GNU/Linux, the most important rival 
to Microsoft in the server market. Consider. for example, comments 
earlier this year by Microsoft executive Jim Allchin:
    http://news.cnet.com/news/O- 1003-200-4833927.html
    ``Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to 
innovation,'' Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT 
One of Microsoft's high-level executives says that freely 
distributed software Code such as Linux could stifle innovation and 
that legislators need to understand the threat.
    The result will be the demise of both intellectual property 
rights and the incentive to spend on research and development, 
Microsoft Windows operating-system chief Jim Allchin said this week. 
Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while discussing 
protection of intellectual progeny rights ... ``Open source is 
an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said. ``I 
can't imagine something that could be worse than this for. the 
software business and the intellectual-property business.''....
    In a June 1, 2001 interview with the Chicago Sun Times, 
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: again complained about the GNU/Linux 
business model, saying ``Linux is a cancer that attaches itself 
in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's 
the way that the license works,'' leading to a round of new 
stories, including for example this account in CNET.Com: http://
www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01 .html ``Microsoft 
CEO takes launch break with the Sun-Times,'' Chicago Sun Times, 
June I, 2001.
    http://news.cnet.co m/news/O- 1 003-200-6291224. 
html
    ``Why Microsoft is wary of Open source: Joe Wilcox and 
Stephen Shankland in CNET.com. June 18, 2001.
    There's more to. Microsoft's recent attacks on the open-source 
movement than mere rhetoric: Linux's popularity could hinder the 
software giant in its quest to gain control of'' a server 
market that's crucial to its long-term goals Recent public 
statements by Microsoft executives have east Linux and the open-
source philosophy that underlies it as. at the minimum, bad for 
competition, and, at worst, a ``cancer'' to everything it 
touches. Behind the war of words, analysts say, is evidence that 
Microsoft is increasingly concerned about Linux and its growing 
popularity. The Unix- like operating system ``has clearly 
emerged as the spoiler that will prevent Microsoft from achieving a 
dominant position'' in the worldwide server operating-system 
market, IDC analyst Al Gillen concludes in a forthcoming report.
    .. While Linux hasn't displaced Windows, it has made serious 
inroads... ].. In attacking Linux and open source, Microsoft finds 
itself competing ``not against another company, but against a 
grassroots movement,'' said Paul Dain, director of application 
development at Emeryville, Calif.-based Wirestone, a technology 
services company.
    ,.. Microsoft has also criticized the General Public License 
(GPL) that governs the heart of Linux. Under this license, changes 
to the Linux core, or kernel, must also be governed by the GPL. The 
license means that ifs company changes the kernel, it must publish 
the changes and can't keep them proprietary if it plans to 
distribute the code externally...
    Microsoft's open-source attacks come at a time when the company 
has been putting the pricing squeeze on customers. In early May, 
Microsoft revamped software licensing, raising upgrades between 33 
percent and 107 percent, according to Gartner. A large percentage of 
Microsoft business customers could in fact be compelled to upgrade 
to Office XP before Oct. 1 or pay a heftier purchase price later on. 
The action ``will encourage--'force'' may be a more 
accurate term-- customers-to upgrade much sooner than they had 
otherwise planned,'' Gillen noted in the IDC report.. 
``Once the honeymoon period runs out in October 2001, the only 
way to ``upgrade'' from a pr0duet that is not considered 
to be current technology is to buy a brand-new full license.''
    This could make open-source Linux's GPL, more attractive to some 
customers feeling trapped by the price hike, Gillen said. 
``Offering this form of ``upgrade protection'' may 
motivate some users to seriously consider alternatives to Microsoft 
technology.'' ...
    What is surprising is that the US .Department of Justice allowed 
Microsoft to place so many provisions in the agreement that can be 
used to undermine the free software movement. Note for. example that 
under J. l and ].2 of the proposed final order, Microsoft can 
withhold technical information from third parties on the grounds 
that Microsoft does not certify the ``authenticity and 
viability of its business,'' while at the same time it is 
describing the licensing system for Linux as a ``cancer'' 
that threatens the demise of both the intellectual property rights 
system and the future of research and development.
    The agreement provides Microsoft with a rich set of strategies 
to undermine the development of free software, which depends upon 
the free sharing of technical information with the general public, 
taking advantage of the collective intelligence of users of 
software, who share ideas on improvements in the code. If Microsoft 
can tightly control access to technical information under a court 
approved plan, or charge fees, and use its monopoly power over the 
client space to migrate users to proprietary interfaces, it will 
harm the development of key alternatives, and lead to a less 
contestable and less competitive platform, with more consumer lock-
in, and more consumer harm, as Microsoft continues to hike up its 
prices for its monopoly products.
    Problems with the term and the enforcement mechanism Another 
core concern with the proposed final order concerns the term of the 
agreement and the enforcement mechanisms. We believe a five-to-seven 
year term is artificially brief, considering that this case has 
already been litigated in one form or another since 1994, and the 
fact that Microsoft's dominance in. the client OS market is stronger 
today than it has ever been, and. it has yet to face a significant 
competitive threat in the client OS market. An artificial end will 
give Microsoft yet another incentive to delay, meeting each new 
problem with an endless round of evasions and creative methods of 
circumventing the pro-competitive aspects of the agreement. Only if 
Microsoft believes it will have to come to terms with its 
obligations will it modify its strategy of Even within the brief 
period of the term of the agreement, Microsoft has too much room to 
co-opt the enforcement effort:
    Microsoft, despite having been found to be a law breaker by the 
courts, is given the right to select ``one member of the three 
members of the Technical Committee, who in turn gets a voice in 
selecting the third member. The committee is gagged, and sworn to 
secrecy, denying the public any information on Microsoft's 
compliance with the agreement, and will be paid by Microsoft, 
working inside Microsoft's headquarters. The public won't know if 
this committee spends its time playing golf with Microsoft 
executives, or investigating Microsoft's anticompetitive activities. 
Its ability to interview Microsoft employees will be extremely 
limited by the provisions that give Microsoft the opportunity to 
insist on'' having its lawyers present.
    One would be hard pressed to imagine an enforcement mechanism 
that would do less to make Microsoft accountable, which is probably 
why Microsoft has accepted its terms of reference.
    In its 1984 agreement with the European Commission, IBM was 
required to affirmatively resolve compatibility issues raised by its 
competitors, and the EC staff had annual meetings with IBM to review 
its progress in resolve disputes. The EC reserved the right to 
revisit its enforcement action on IBM if it was not satisfied with 
IBM's conduct.
    The court could require that the Department of Justice itself or 
some truly independent parties appoint the members of the TC, and 
give the TC real investigative powers, take them off Microsoft's 
payroll, and give them staff and the authority to inform the public 
of progress in resolving compliance problems, including for example 
an annual report that could include information on past complaints, 
as well as suggestions for modifications of the order that may be 
warranted by Microsoft's conduct. The TC could be given real 
enforcement powers, such as the power to levy fines on Microsoft. 
The level of fines that would serve as a deterrent for cash rich 
Microsoft would be difficult to. fathom, but one might make these 
fines deter more by directing the money to be paid into trust funds 
that would fund the development of free software, an endeavor that 
Microsoft has indicated it strongly opposes as a threat to its own 
monopoly. This would, give Microsoft a much greater incentive to 
abide by the agreement.

[[Page 30227]]

Failure to address II1 Gotten Gains

    Completely missing from the proposed final order is anything 
that would make Microsoft pay for its past misdeeds, and this is an 
omission that must be remedied. Microsoft is hardly a first time 
offender, and has never shown remorse for its conduct, choosing 
instead to repeatedly attack the motives and character of officers 
of the government and members of the judiciary.
    Microsoft has profited richly from the maintenance of its 
monopoly. On September 30, 2001, Microsoft reported cash and short-
term investments of $36.2 billion, up from $31.6 billion the 
previous quarter--an accumulation of more than $1.5 billion per 
month. ``
    It is astounding that Microsoft would face only a ``sin no 
more'' edict from a court, after its long and tortured history 
of evasion of antitrust enforcement and its extraordinary embrace of 
anticompetitive practices--practices recognized as illegal by 
all members of the DC Circuit court. The court has a wide range of 
options that would address the most egregious of Microsoft's past 
misdeeds. For example, even if the court decided to forgo the break-
up of the Windows and Office parts of the company, it could require 
more targeted divestitures, such as divestitures of its browser 
technology and media player technologies, denying Microsoft the 
fruits of its illegal conduct, and it could require affirmative 
support for rival middleware products that it illegally acted to 
sabotage. Instead the proposed order permits Microsoft to 
consolidate the benefits from past misdeeds, while preparing for a 
weak oversight body tasked with monitoring future misdeeds only. 
What kind of a signal does this send to the public and to other 
large corporate law breakers7 That economic crimes pay! Please 
consider these and other criticisms of the settlement proposal, and 
avoid if possible yet another weak ending to a Microsoft antitrust 
case. Better to send this unchastened monopoly juggernaut a sterner 
message.
    `James Love'
    Cc: Stanley Sporkin, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Anne K. 
Bingaman. Joel I. Klein
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Nader
    Ralph Nader
    P.O. Box 19312
    Washington, DC 20036
    James Love
Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367
``Washington, DC 20036
December 10, 2001
Judge Honorable .1. Frederick Motz
United States District Court
District of Maryland
101 West Lombard Street
Room 510
Baltimore, MD 21201
Fax: + 1.410.962.2698
RE: Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1332
    Dear Judge Motz:
    We are writing to ask that you reject the proposed settlement to 
the private antitrust actions against Microsoft, on the grounds that 
the settlement is inadequate in terms of the relief, anticompetitive 
In terms of its structure, and is among the least effective 
mechanisms for expanding access to educational services.
    Microsoft has extraordinary global monopoly power. In several 
essential software markets, ``including most notably its more 
than 90 percent market share for the operating systems (Windows), 
word processing (Word), spreadsheets (Excel) and presentation 
graphics (Powerpoint), and it has engaged in the equivalent of an 
antitrust crime spree, using an astonishing array of anticompetitive 
practices to consolidate and expand its monopoly power. As a 
consequence, consumers are denied the benefits of competition, and 
suffer from sluggish innovation, poor quality products, fewer 
choices, .and high prices. The Microsoft monopoly is highly 
profitable, and allowed Microsoft to accumulate an astonishing $1.5 
billion per month, in cash last quarter. The proposed settlement of 
the private antitrust claim is not only a tiny sum In comparison to



MTC-00033734--0169

    Comments o1
    Ralph Nader and James Love
    Microsoft's sales ($1 billion every 13 days currently), but It 
will not even be paid in cash.]:t isn't as if Microsoft can't afford 
to pay.. ]:t has cash reserves more than $36 billion right now. 
Microsoft simply sees the resolution of this antitrust case as a 
great opportunity to engage in more anticompetitive conduct--in 
this case converting its liabilities for antitrust damages into a 
slush fund to undermine its competitors in the educational market.
    The court should not allow the lawyers who have proposed this 
settlement to bury this important antitrust case with yet another 
disappointment in the long history of weak efforts to reign in 
Microsoft's assaults on consumers. The settlement should not be yet 
another marketing effort by Microsoft aimed at the strategically 
important education market. It should provide a measure of justice 
that has yet eluded a long list of law enforcement officials. We 
object to many aspects of the settlement.
    * The size of the damages is small by any reasonable 
interpretation of the harm to consumers.
    *  Microsoft is demonstrating zero remorse for its price 
gouging, and indeed has engaged in its most aggressive price hikes 
to date, as it continues to narrow consumer rights in license 
agreements, raises standard and negotiated license fees (including 
those for the educational market), and steps up its coercive 
strategies to force upgrades, such as its ``abandonment of 
support for older licenses, and the introduction of new non-
Interoperable technologies that will not work without, increasingly 
frequent upgrades.
    The proposal will make it even less attractive for schools to 
purchase products from Microsoft competitors, because Microsoft will 
subsidize its sates from the antitrust settlement costs, having the 
Intended and entirely predictable effect of strengthening 
Microsoft's marketshare and weakening further its few remaining 
rivals. Moreover, to the degree that the funds from the settlement 
are small relative to the number of schools that will seek grants or 
donations, and if Microsoft is perceived to play any role in 
determining who obtains grants, schools may be reluctant to purchase 
products from Microsoft rivals, thinking this will undermine their 
chances or receiving benefits from the settlement fund, allowing 
Microsoft to leverage the anticompetitive effect of the settlement 
fund. (One need only look at the comments filed in this proceeding 
to appreciate how eager various non-profit Institutions are to curry 
favor with Microsoft:. Many groups that have received Microsoft 
grants are now on record opposing .efforts to reject this settlement 
as inadequate and anticompetitive.) For schools, the more 
``important issue is dealing with skyrocketing license fees, 
which this settlement will only address in a minor way, for a small 
number of users, and for only a short time.



MTC-00033734--0170

    Ralph Nader and James Love
    If the court wishes to direct the settlement resources for the 
educational market, it should do so in such a way as to promote 
competition, rather than to reduce competition. One solution would 
be to place the money into a trust fund to be used only for 
purchases of non-Microsoft products, creating a needed boost to the 
market for alternatives. Another would be to require the funds be 
donated to groups who develop free software alternatives--these 
very alternatives that Microsoft executives have claimed were their 
main competitive threat during the USDOJ/State AG antitrust 
litigation. Either of these approaches will directly address the 
longer term concern over software pricing, the problem this case 
seeks to remedy.
    Sincerely,
    Ralph Nader
    Consumer Project on Technology



MTC-00033734--0171

    Written Statement of Mark Havlicek Digital Data Resources, Inc.
    Provided to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
    Washington, DC
    December 12, 2001
    Thank you, Chairman Leahy and distinguished Members of the 
Committee including my own Senator Grassley. I am pleased to 
contribute my comments to your hearing on he Microsoft Settlement: A 
Look to the Future.'' My name is Mark Havlicek and I am the 
President of Digital Data Resources, Inc. in Des Moines, Iowa. I 
have been actively involved in the technology industry for several 
years, and it is my hope that the Microsot5 case wi11 be settled.
    The economic outlook for 2002 is very concerning. From coast to 
coast, revenue growth has slowed, spending is exceeding budgeted 
levels, and many states are looking at large budget cuts. My own 
state of Iowa is in the middle of a terrible budget crisis.
    After the events of September I 1, we saw a dramatic plunge in 
the technology sector. Instead of bring tied up in court, technology 
entrepreneurs should at work developing products and charting new 
territory with never before imagined products and services. Given 
the opportunity and free of

[[Page 30228]]

unnecessary hurdles to progress, technology companies can build our 
economy back up to record levels. Giants like Apple, IBM, and 
Microsoft provide a stable environment for the myriad small firms, 
like mine, to create, develop, and release new cutting-edge 
technologies and employ additional people in good paying careers. 
Small companies like my own, work in concert, and competition at 
times, with these giants. This mutually dependent relationship is 
the lifeblood of our industry and a driving force behind our growth.
    Over the past 20 years, we have seen computers go from the size 
of a refrigerator to the size of a deck of cards. And in tandem with 
those leaps forward, We have seen declining prices, better and 
faster technology, and increasingly more efficient methods of 
delivery to consumers.
    It takes a competitive, entrepreneurial spirit to survive in 
this exceptionally aggressive industry of ours, especially in the 
case of small or emerging businesses. We spend our days watching 
competitors, finding markets, and keeping a watchful eye on the 
economy. .And it seemed the storm has passed, both figuratively and 
in the eyes of the stock market, when a settlement was announced 
last month.
    But the states, including my own state of Iowa, which remain 
involved have argued for tougher enforcement provisions, including a 
court-appointed ``special master'' to oversee Microsoft's 
compliance. And we have found through experience that there is no 
remedy discrete to Microsoft when it's the nucleus of a tech sector 
that operates as its own economy.
    These states arc not right to push ahead for further prosecution 
of Microsoft The proposed settlement is sufficient to address the 
concerns of business people like me who are in the technology 
industry and are most affected. Companies like mine strive to be 
similar to Microsoft and we are discouraged by the hold-out states 
position on further action. It seems to me to be a strong 
disincentive to progress and entrepreneurial --achievement.
    The time to take a hard line on successful companies like 
Microsoft is over. The hold-out states are holding out to the 
detriment of their state economies and our national economy at a 
time when actions like this are not at all useful.It is a 
frightening prospect to see another dollar of precious development 
resources diverted to paying attorneys' fees instead of rippling 
through our industry. Money that could have launched a new product 
or created new opportunities for a small business on the brink 
instead has disappeared into the abyss of this lawsuit. The 
settlement is a positive step in putting it all behind us and 
opening a new chapter in the life of the technology industry.
    I applaud Assistant Attorney General Charles lames for his role 
in bringing the case this far. The settlement agreement is a strong 
one. It will have an enormous, positive impact on the future of my 
company and the entire software industry. My colleagues and I hope 
we can rely on your support. Thank you, Senators, for the 
opportunity to provide this statement at such a critical for our 
nation.
    Thank You,
    MARK HAVLICEK
    PRESIDENT
    DIGITAL DATA RESOURCES, INC.
    920 MORGAN STREET, SUITE N
    DES MOINES, IA 50309
    515-243-3622 PHONE
    515-243-1.028 FAX
    [email protected]



MTC-00033734--0173

DDR
Testimony by
[Jerry Hilburn, President and Founder]
Catfish Software, Inc.
Provided to the
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
December 12, 2001
    I am very, pleased to provide a written statement for ),our 
hearing on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the 
Future.'' Thank you, Chairman Leah{time} , and Members of the 
Committee, for the opportunity, to deliver a small businessperson's 
perspective on the case before this distinguished group.
    I would like to tell you my point of view on the Microsoft case. 
I am a small businessman in San Diego, California. Catfish Software, 
Inc. started operations in 1994 providing network services and 
custom database applications for small business. In 1998, Catfish 
Software launched an E-mail Application Services branch providing 
double opt- in mail list service and web-based customer support 
applications and today, Catfish Software provides support to 300+ 
companies reaching 2,000,000+ subscribers of its software services.
    One of my firm's top competitors is Microsoft's bCentral. So you 
may ask why I speak in favor of the Microsoft settlement. Businesses 
large and small have mortgaged their futures against the impact of 
the terrorist war. Some smaller businesses--techology and 
otherwise--have already found themselves strangled by a lack of 
consumer demand and by slowdowns in corporate and consumer spending. 
Most of us are finding it is time to shore up resources and protect 
our assets from the impact of the war.
    In this time of so much uncertainty, we need the promise of a 
brighter day and the knowledge that the government--from the 
federal level on down- is doing everything possible to invigorate 
our flagging economy. Competition and consumer preference should 
decide the direction of the marketplace and meanwhile, the 
government should not rush to intervene in the New Economy. The last 
thing our economy needs at this time is the burden of remedies which 
do nothing but slow the pace of development and limit the choices of 
consumers.
    The Justice Department handled this case admirably, and the 
settlement they agreed upon is sound. The settlement outlines how 
Microsoft can operate, but more importantly it provides some 
assurances to an industry that has been on unstable ground lately.
    Microsoft's ability to design and produce new software in turn 
creates opportunities for small and medium-sized developers to write 
applications which operate on a Windows- based platform. As the old 
saying goes, a high tide floats all ships. Calls for break-up of the 
company did not help the already tenuous situation. And when 
Microsoft looked like it might be pulled under, the Nasdaq was hit 
as well as the stocks of many high-tech companies. But when 
announcements of the settlement were made public around the 
beginning of November 2001, everyone got a nice little bump. 
Consumers and other technology entrepreneurs were hopeful that this 
case could be put to bed and that the tech sector could get back to 
business.
    This litigation that has been an albatross around all our necks 
for so long--and ending the string of lawsuits associated with 
it--will have a positive effect on the tech economy. With a 
little luck, that will ripple out to America's economy as a whole.
    With so many technologies poised to enter the marketplace, 
Microsoft and many others, including Catfish Software are looking 
for ways to enhance the computing experience. The Internet has 
become a center of most everyone's daily lives--from toddlers 
typing their first strokes with learning games to seniors learning 
how to send and receive e-mail. Untapped markets and unimagined 
ideas abound, but we must not harness the creativity or the ability 
of software firms to bring those products to bear in the 
marketplace. The olive branch of settlement was extended, and it is 
a solution that is good for the economy and good for the tech 
industry. Allow us the opportunity to get back to work and earn 
money with our products and ideas once again.
    This concludes my testimony. Once again, I thank the Committee 
and its distinguished Members for the opportunity to provide written 
testimony on this important issue.

HTC-00033734--0175

CompTIA(r)
North Fairfax Drive, Suite 440
Arlington, VA 22203-1624
Tel (703) 812-1333 Fax (703) 812-1337
[email protected]
THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT:
    A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
    Written Testimony Submitted by the Computing Technology Industry 
Association in Connection with Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
Hearings December 12, 2001
    Prepared by
    Lars H. Liebeler, Esq.
    Thaler Liebeler LLP
    1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Suite 200
    Washington, DC 20006
    CompTIA Antitrust Counsel
    (202) 828-9867
    THE MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT:
    A LOOK TO THE FUTURE
    STATEMENT OF INTEREST
    The Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTLA) is the 
world's largest trade association in the information technology and 
communications sector. CompTIA represents over 8,000 hardware and 
software manufacturers, distributors, retailers, Internet, 
telecommunications, IT training and other service companies in over 
50 countries. The overwhelming majority of CompTIA members are 
resellers--companies that resell software and hardware to 
consumers, businesses, or other resellers.

[[Page 30229]]

These resellers are vendor-neutral and their objective is to be able 
to sell whatever products their customers wish to buy. In that sense 
they believe that antitrust laws should focus primarily on consumer 
impact rather than competitor impact. Microsoft is a member of 
CompTIA as are many of Microsoft's competitors.
    In 1998, CompTIA's Board of Directors adopted a formal policy 
statement on antitrust. That statement supports sensible antitrust 
enforcement that is based on demonstrable economic effects in the 
marketplace. CompTIA believes that market forces typically correct 
any temporary market imperfections and that government regulators 
should only intervene in the technology marketplace when there is 
overwhelming evidence of a substantial and pervasive market failure. 
Pursuant to its policy statement, CompTIA has written and spoken 
frequently on antitrust issues of relevance to the technology 
sector. In June 1998, CompTIA filed an amicus brief in the Intel v. 
Intergraph litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit. In that case CompTLA urged the court to reject a lower 
court's finding that antitrust allegations could be a basis for 
ordering a company to disclose its valuable intellectual property.
    CompTLA filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the United States v. 
Microsoft case in November 2000. The amicus brief urged the Court of 
Appeals to reverse the District Court's order breaking Microsoft 
into two separate companies and further urged the Court of Appeals 
to reverse the liability findings against Microsoft. The basis for 
CompTIA's participation as amicus and submission of this testimony 
to the Committee is its interest in the overall health and 
prosperity of the technology sector.
    The antitrust case against Microsoft and the final remedies that 
will be imposed upon Microsoft have a direct effect on the overall 
health and prosperity of the technology sector. First, because 
Microsoft is such a large and important participant in the 
technology industry, any remedy that affects the company's 
operations necessarily affects the industry,, Microsoft's vendors, 
and all companies that rely on Microsoft products. A remedial order 
that goes beyond the issues in the case may have a significantly 
detrimental effect upon innovation and growth in the industry. 
Second, the precedent established in this case has important 
ramifications for future activities in the technology sector. Overly 
restrictive sanctions imposed upon Microsoft may act to inhibit 
competitive behavior by other companies throughout the industry 
thereby deterring conduct that promotes innovation and technological 
development.

INTRODUCTION

    On November 6, 2001 the United States Department of Justice and 
nine States entered into a Proposed Final Judgment with the 
Microsoft Corporation that resolves the antitrust charges brought by 
those governmental entities against the company. In the days after 
the settlement was announced, the nine non-settling States and the 
District of Columbia expressed their intention to continue 
litigation against Microsoft in an effort to convince the United 
States District Court that more extensive remedies should be 
ordered. On December 7, 2001 the non-settling States filed their 
remedy proposal with the District Court.
    This testimony analyzes the Court of Appeals opinion, the 
November 6, 2001 Proposed Final Judgment, and the non-settling 
States' remedy proposal and arrives at the following conclusions:
    ï¿½ The U.S. Court of Appeals June 28, 2001 opinion 
reaffirmed that the central goal of the U.S. antitrust laws is not 
to protect competitors from competition nor is it to penalize a 
defendant. The central goal of the antitrust laws is to promote 
competition in order to enhance consumer welfare.
    ï¿½ In order to support its remedy in the remand 
proceeding now before the District Court, the Court of Appeals 
opinion requires that the government show a significant causal 
connection between Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct and actual 
injury to competition and consumers in the marketplace. If the 
government fails to prove a causal connection, then the remedy 
imposed can be no more broad than an order enjoining the specific 
anticompetitive conduct at issue.
    ï¿½ Given the risks to both sides from further 
litigation, the November 6 Proposed Final Judgment is a reasonable 
settlement of the remaining disputed issues in the case that insures 
that Microsoft's anticompetitive conduct will not be repeated, and 
insures that every market participant has a fair opportunity to 
compete. The settlement also insures that the technology industry 
will not be encumbered with excessive regulation that would stifle 
innovation and growth.
    ï¿½ The additional remedies proposed by the non-
settling States on December 7 are not likely to enhance competition 
or promote consumer welfare. The vast majority of the States' 
proposals go far beyond the scope of the liability found by the 
Court of Appeals and are thus legally unsupportable. Further, the 
proposed remedies would likely interfere with natural market forces, 
impose higher costs on consumers, impair innovation, and benefit 
Microsoft's competitors at the expense of consumers.

I. SUMMARY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS OPINION

A. Background

    On June 28, 2001 the United State Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (``Court of Appeals'') issued 
its ruling in United States v. Microsoft. The Court of Appeals found 
that Microsoft had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by taking 
anticompetitive actions to protect its monopoly in the computer 
operating system market. The Court, however, reversed the District 
Court rulings entered adverse to Microsoft regarding tying, 
attempted monopolization, and imposition of a break-up remedy. The 
case has been remanded to the District Court for proceedings on the 
appropriate remedy to address the monopoly maintenance findings.
    While much of the Court of Appeal's opinion focuses on issues 
that are specific to Microsoft, the Court made two preliminary yet 
important observations with respect to antitrust enforcement 
activities in the high-tech sector. First, the Court noted that 
despite the relatively fast pace of the Microsoft proceedings, the 
speed at which technologically dynamic markets undergo change is 
even faster. The consequences of the speed at which the market 
changes has significant implications for the conduct of antitrust 
cases. This rapid change ``threatens enormous practical 
difficulties for courts considering the appropriate measure of 
relief in equitable enforcement actions, both in crafting injunctive 
remedies in the first instance and reviewing those remedies in the 
second.'' Opinion at 10-11.
    Because technology moves so quickly there is little likelihood 
that a company with large market share at any given time can engage 
in anticompetitive exclusionary behavior that causes consumer 
injury. In many instances a more desirable successor technology may 
very rapidly displace a large market share company before that 
company is even able to attempt to exercise monopoly power.
    Second, the Court also noted that competition in the technology 
marketplace is frequently ``competition for the market'' 
rather than ``competition in the market.'' This means that 
there is intense competition between firms when a new product is 
introduced, but once consumers choose the firm that makes the best 
product, that firm will likely gamer the vast majority of market 
share. This ``network effect'' phenomenon means that as 
more users utilize a compatible and inter-operable system or 
service, the value to each user increases. Opinion at 11-12. 
Thus, the Court of Appeals made clear that lawful monopolies and 
companies with large market shares are frequently desirable and 
highly beneficial to consumers. Opinion at 11.
    The Court of Appeal's inclusion of this theoretical discussion 
is a broad response to the question that many have asked since the 
beginning of the Microsoft case--that is, do the antitrust 
laws, written and applied predominantly in a brick-and-mortar era, 
have the same level of relevance in the information technology era? 
The answer is mixed. The antitrust laws do apply to the new economy, 
but the application of the rules must take into account economic 
realities and to insure that the objectives of antitrust are 
achieved: the protection and enhancement of competition as measured 
by consumer welfare.
    The most dramatic illustration of the application of antitrust 
to the new economy was in the Court's rulings on the tying claim and 
in reversing the lower court's remedial order. The Court's 
application of a rule of reason analysis (rather than per se 
treatment) for tying claims while at the same time rejecting the 
``separate products'' test marks a significant recognition 
that product integration in the technology sector is likely to have 
benefits to consumers that outweigh any harms to competition. 
Additionally, the Court's analysis in rejecting the lower court's 
break-up order suggests that absent a strong showing of a causal 
connection between anticompetitive acts and Microsoft's dominant 
position in the operating system market, radical structural relief 
or extensive conduct restrictions that go beyond the challenged 
conduct would be unsupportable.

[[Page 30230]]

B. Monopoly Maintenance

    The Court of Appeals affirmed in large measure the District 
Court's ruling that Microsoft acted unlawfully to maintain its 
monopoly in the operating system market. The Court found that 
Microsoft viewed Netscape Navigator Internet browser as a potential 
threat to the Windows operating system because it could conceivably 
have become an intermediate platform (with exposed application 
programming interfaces or API's) for the development of software 
applications. In order to promote Internet Explorer and retard the 
distribution of Netscape Navigator, Microsoft placed restrictions on 
original equipment manufacturers (OEM's). OEM's were not permitted 
to remove the Internet Explorer icon or install a Navigator icon on 
the desktop.
    The Court also found that the way in which Internet Explorer was 
integrated into Windows was unlawful. Beginning with the release of 
Windows 98, Microsoft removed Internet Explorer from the list of 
programs that could be accessed using in the add/delete program 
feature. The Court found that this had the effect of impeding the 
inclusion of rival browsers on a computer because OEM's were 
reluctant to place two Internet browsers on the desktop. Because 
Microsoft did not offer any pro-competitive justification for 
preventing the removal of Internet Explorer, the Court found this 
feature unlawful. The Court also found that Microsoft's dealings 
with some independent software vendors, Apple Computer Corp., Java, 
and Intel were designed solely to protect its operating system 
monopoly and therefore those dealings violated Section 2 of the 
Sherman Act.
    Shortly after the Court of Appeals decision was released, 
Microsoft announced that it would modify its release of Windows XP 
to respond to the Court of Appeals rulings in the monopoly 
maintenance section of the opinion. Thus, OEM's now are permitted to 
have more control over the appearance of the Windows desktop; they 
may add icons for competing software and on-line services and delete 
the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop. OEM's and consumers 
also have the ability to remove Internet Explorer icon from a 
computer using the 1 Shortly after the Court of Appeals issued its 
ruling, Microsoft asked the court to reconsider the finding that 
Microsoft had unlawfully ``commingled'' code from Internet 
Explorer and Windows.
    Microsoft argued that as a factual matter the District Court was 
incorrect in finding that Microsoft actually had placed Windows code 
and Internet Explorer code in the same libraries in order to prevent 
IE from being removed. The Court of Appeals denied Microsoft's 
petition for rehearing on this issue but wrote that Microsoft could 
raise this issue on remand with respect to the appropriate remedy in 
the case.
    Microsoft's actions in allowing OEM's and/or consumers to remove 
the Internet Explorer icon and program link (and the inclusion of 
that concession in the settlement agreement) appears to address the 
Court's concerns regarding exclusion of rival browsers. Thus, any 
interpretation of the Court of Appeals decision to require that 
Microsoft re-engineer Windows to duplicate shared code functions and 
then remove the IE code (as the non-settling States interpretation 
does) would be inconsistent with the language and policy of the 
opinion as a whole. Further, the Court of Appeals found that shared 
library files that perform functions for both the operating system 
and the browser enhance efficiency. Opinion at 73.

C. Attempted Monopolization

    The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the District Court's 
finding that Microsoft unlawfully attempted to monopolize the 
Internet browser market. Opinion at 62-68. The District Court 
had found that Microsoft's 1995 proposal to divide the browser 
market with Netscape created a dangerous probability of monopoly and 
that Microsoft's aggressive marketing of Internet Explorer after 
June 1995 also created a dangerous probability of monopoly. But the 
Court of Appeals found that the government had failed to properly 
identify the relevant market including reasonable substitutes for 
Internet browsers. Further, the Court also found that there was no 
showing of significant barriers to entry in any putative browser 
market.
    The Court's ruling on attempted monopolization has significant 
implications for future business activities in the technology 
sector. If the District Court rule had been upheld, the resulting 
rule would have made it virtually per se unlawful for successful 
firms to explore collaborative relationships with emerging 
competitors. Further, it would permit a ``dangerous probability 
of success'' to be proven simply by showing that a firm has 
secured a 50-60 percent market share without requiring any 
showing that the firm will ever be in a position to exercise market 
power- that is, the power to raise price and exclude competitors. 
Both propositions would have had serious adverse repercussions for 
the IT industry and would have likely blocked countless pro-
competitive competitor collaborations that would benefit consumers.
    Shortly after the Court of Appeals issued its ruling, Microsoft 
asked the court to reconsider the finding that Microsoft had 
unlawfully ``commingled'' code from Internet Explorer and 
Windows. Microsoft argued that as a factual matter the District 
Court was incorrect in finding that Microsoft actually had placed 
Windows code and Internet Explorer code in the same libraries in 
order to prevent IE from being removed. The Court of Appeals denied 
Microsoft's petition for rehearing on this issue but wrote that 
Microsoft could raise this issue on remand with respect to the 
appropriate remedy in the case. Microsoft's actions in allowing 
OEM's and/or consumers to remove the Internet Explorer icon and 
program link (and the inclusion of that concession in the settlement 
agreement) appears to address the Court's concerns regarding 
exclusion of rival browsers. Thus, any interpretation of the Court 
of Appeals decision to require that Microsoft re-engineer Windows to 
duplicate shared code functions and then remove the IE code (as the 
non-settling States interpretation does) would be inconsistent with 
the language and policy of the opinion as a whole. Further, the 
Court of Appeals found that shared library files that perform 
functions for both the operating system and the browser enhance 
efficiency. Opinion at 73.

D. Tying

    The District Court found that Microsoft's inclusion of Internet 
Explorer with Windows was a per se unlawful tying arrangement. The 
Court of Appeals reversed this conclusion and ruled that per se 
analysis was inappropriate for arrangements involving platform 
software products. Because the inclusion of added functionality into 
software products has the potential to be pro-competitive and 
generate vast consumer benefits, integration in this area must be 
judged under the rule of reason. The Court of Appeals remanded the 
tying claim to the District Court for analysis under the rule of 
reason. Opinion at 68-90. Under the rule of reason, however, 
future antitrust plaintiffs must bear a heavy burden to prove that 
software integration unlawful.
    Historically tying arrangements have been deemed per se 
unlawful. But the Court properly recognized that software products 
are ``novel categories of dealings'' and that this case 
provided the ``first up-close look at the technological 
integration of added functionality into software that serves as a 
platform for third-party applications. There being no close parallel 
in prior antitrust cases, simplistic application of per se tying 
rules carries a serious risk of harm.'' Opinion at 69. The 
Court also noted the benefits from software integration: 
``undling obviously saves distribution and consumer transaction 
costs.'' Opinion at 73.
    In recognizing the potential benefits from integration, the 
Court then determined that the ``separate products'' test 
under Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 
(1984)-- that is, if the tying and tied products are 
``separate products'' then the integration is 
unlawful-- was not appropriate for platform software analysis.
    Finally, the Court of Appeals issued precise instructions to the 
District Court in considering the tying in the event the government 
were to pursue the claim on remand. Those instructions preclude the 
plaintiffs from arguing any theory of anti-competitive harm based on 
a precise definition of the browser market or barriers to entry in 
the putative browser market. Opinion at 87. Faced with this new 
legal standard, the United States, on September 6, 2001, announced 
that it would not pursue the tying claim on remand.
    In sum, adding new functions to existing software is a nearly 
universal form of innovation in the software industry and is 
essential in persuading customers to upgrade from their existing 
software to a new, improved version. For example, word processing 
programs have incorporated formerly separate spell-checkers and 
outliners, personal finance programs have incorporated tax 
functions, internet service providers have incorporated instant 
messaging features, database software companies are integrating 
their databases with their applications server, and e-mail programs 
have incorporated contact managers. If companies that gain a 
``dominant'' position in a given field were

[[Page 30231]]

barred from innovating in this manner, consumers would be denied new 
benefits that result from integration, and the software industry 
would stagnate. The Court of Appeals rejection of a per se rule for 
platform software integration, and the government's subsequent 
decision to drop that claim on remand, insures that teleological 
innovation will be permitted to continue and provide consumers 
additional benefits.

E. Remedy

    The Court of Appeals fundamentally altered the basis of 
liability found by the District Court and thus the structural and 
conduct remedies imposed by the lower court were reversed. Opinion 
at 106. The Court of Appeals correctly noted that an antitrust 
remedy must focus on restoring competition and the District Court 
must explain how its remedy will do so. Opinion at 99-100. 
Central to the inquiry of how to restore competition is the 
identification of specific injury to the competitive process by the 
defendant's behavior. Thus, the Court of Appeals directed the 
District Court on remand to make a finding of a ``causal 
connection'' when assessing an appropriate remedy. Opinion at 
105.
    While the Court of Appeals left the District Court with a large 
measure of discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy on remand, 
there are repeated and clear directions that the evidence necessary 
to sustain a structural remedy or extensive conduct remedy must be 
very strong. Opinion at 105-06. Faced with this language, the 
United States announced on September 6, 2001 that it would no longer 
seek break up of Microsoft. The individual States have also dropped 
their demand for a structural remedy.
    The remaining issue for the new District Court judge on remand, 
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, is to fashion an appropriate remedy for the 
monopoly maintenance findings that were affirmed by the Court of 
Appeals. Here too the Court of Appeals has provided some general 
guidance. The appropriate remedy for Microsoft's antitrust 
violations may be ``an injunction against continuation of that 
conduct.'' Opinion at 105. The language cited by the non-
settling States that the unlawful monopoly ``must be 
terminated'' would only apply in the context of a demand for 
structural relief. The non-settling States have not made a demand 
for structural relief, nor have they made a showing of a causal 
connection between Microsoft's unlawful behavior and actual harm in 
the marketplace.

II. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

    After the November 6, 2001 Proposed Final Judgment was announced 
many of Microsoft's competitors complained that the settlement was 
too lenient. The settlement, however, should not be designed as a 
wish list for Microsoft's competitors. The settlement should fairly 
address the areas of liability found by the Court of Appeals. 
Anything less would encourage Microsoft and other companies to 
engage in anticompetitive conduct in the future; anything more would 
inappropriately imperil the teleology marketplace, cause harm to 
consumers, and likely be struck down by the Court of Appeals. 
Additionally, the settlement necessarily takes into account the fact 
that the issue of causation has not yet been decided by the Court. 
In light of the scope of the Court of Appeals decision and the 
uncertainty facing both sides from further litigation, the November 
6 Proposed Final Judgment is a reasonable compromise of the 
antitrust litigation.
    The November 6 Proposed Final Judgment addresses the liability 
issues in the monopoly maintenance section of the Court of Appeals 
decision, and correctly does not seek to impose a remedy related to 
other areas in which Microsoft prevailed on appeal--attempted 
monopolization and tying.
    First, the settlement prohibits Microsoft from retaliating 
against any OEM because of the OEM's participation in promoting or 
developing non-Microsoft middleware or a non-Microsoft operating 
system. This provision takes the ``club'' out of 
Microsoft's hand and prevents the company from using anticompetitive 
means to discourage OEM's from promoting or preventing rival 
software from being developed or installed on Windows desktop. This 
anti-retaliation provision deals head on with most of the conduct 
the Court of Appeals found to be illegal in the monopoly maintenance 
section of its June 28, 2001 opinion.
    Second, Microsoft is obligated to adhere to one uniform license 
agreement for Windows with all OEM's and the royalty for the license 
shall be made publically available on a web site accessible by all 
OEM's. The price schedule may vary for volume discounts and for 
those OEM's who are eligible for market development allowances in 
connection with Windows products. This allows Microsoft to continue 
to compete in the middleware market with other middleware 
manufacturers and this competition will continue to benefit 
consumers.
    Third, OEM's are permitted to alter the appearance of the 
Windows desktop to add icons, shortcuts and menu items for non-
Microsoft middleware, and they may establish non-Microsoft programs 
as default programs in Windows. Consumers also have the option of 
removing the interface with an)'' Microsoft middleware product.
    Fourth, Microsoft must reveal the API's used by Microsoft 
middleware to interoperate with the Windows operating system. 
Microsoft must also offer to license its intellectual property 
rights to any entity who has need for the intellectual property to 
insure that their products will interoperate with the Windows 
operating system. These central features of the settlement insure 
that other companies have the ability to challenge Microsoft 
products, both in the operating system and middleware / applications 
markets. Consumers and OEM's have far greater freedom to instal and 
use non-Microsoft products, Microsoft is prohibited from retaliating 
against any entity who promotes non-Microsoft programs, and all 
companies have equal access to Microsoft API's and technical 
information so that non-Microsoft middleware has the same 
opportunity to perform as well as Microsoft middleware.
    The enforcement mechanisms of the settlement will enable the 
plaintiffs to insure Microsoft's compliance with the agreement. 
Representatives of the United States and the States may inspect 
Microsoft's books, records, source code or any other item to insure 
compliance with the settlement terms. In addition, an independent 
three person technical committee will be established to insure that 
Microsoft complies with all terms of the settlement agreement. The 
technical committee will have full access to all Microsoft source 
code, books and records, and personnel and can report to the United 
States and/or the States any violation of the settlement by 
Microsoft.

III. SUMMARY OF THE NON-SETTLING STATES'' DECEMBER 7 PROPOSAL

    While the November 6 Proposed Final Judgment goes beyond the 
liability found by the Court of Appeals in some areas (i.e., by 
requiring Microsoft to disclose its confidential technical 
information to software developers), the non-settling States'' 
proposal filed on December 7, 2001 goes so far beyond the judgment 
as to bear little relationship to the Court of Appeals decision.
    The centerpiece of the states'' remedy demand is that 
Microsoft be compelled to create and market a stripped down version 
of its Windows operating system that would not include many of the 
features that current versions of Windows do include. Since 
consumers can now easily remove Microsoft features from their 
desktop and OEM's are free to place non-Microsoft programs on the 
desktop, it is difficult to see how this requirement would benefit 
consumers.
    Instead of giving consumers more choices of software products, 
this unwarranted intrusion into marketing and design decision by the 
non-settling States would cause further delays in the development of 
software created to run on XP, with developers waiting to see which 
version would become the standard. Such delays would further 
postpone the salutary effects of XP on the computer market. It would 
also hamper programmers'' ability to take full advantage of 
technological improvements in Windows, creating a marketplace in 
which the same software applications would not perform equally. This 
remedy would balkanize the computing industry and would undermine 
the benefits consumers obtain from a standardized operating 
platform.
    In addition to the stripped down version of Windows, the 
December 7 proposal would also require Microsoft to continue 
licensing and supporting prior versions of Windows for five years 
after the introduction of a new version of Windows. The primary 
effect of this requirement is to impose unnecessary costs upon 
Microsoft (that would likely be passed on to consumers) and reduce 
the incentives for Microsoft to improve the operating system. This 
disincentive to Microsoft to make technological advances would 
ripple throughout the software industry as applications developers 
would not have an advancing platform to write software to.
    The non-settling States remedy proposal also includes a variety 
of restrictions that will have little if any quantifiable benefit to 
consumers but which will simply advance the interests of Microsoft 
competitors. Consumers and OEM's currently have full

[[Page 30232]]

ability and freedom to include Java software on their computers; the 
States'' requirement that Microsoft carry Java on all copies of 
Windows does not provide consumers or OEM's with any more choice 
than they already have. Similarly, the requirement that Microsoft 
continue to produce an Office Suite for Macintosh interferes with 
natural market forces that direct resources to the best use and may 
actually preclude the success of competing applications software. 
Directing Microsoft to produce and support any software without 
regard for market forces is likely to harm consumers, not help them. 
Moreover, the November 6 Proposed Judgment fully addresses and 
prevents Microsoft from retaliating or taking any anticompetitive 
actions against Apple.
    Advances in technology are frequently made as a result of joint 
ventures between competitors. The Department of Justice and the 
Federal Trade Commission have recently released guidelines for the 
formation of such joint ventures. Notwithstanding the recognition by 
these enforcement agencies that most joint ventures are pro-
competitive, the non-settling States seek to restrict Microsoft from 
entering into joint ventures whereby the parties to the joint 
venture agree not to compete with the product that is the subject of 
the joint venture. This restriction will chill innovation and 
prohibit countless consumer welfare enhancing arrangements. Further, 
this proposal flatly ignores the fact that the Court of Appeals 
found in Microsoft's favor on the issue of the alleged illegality of 
its joint venture proposal to Netscape.
    The most harmful of the remaining remedy proposals include those 
that require the extensive and mandatory sharing of Microsoft's 
intellectual property. The non-settling States proposals in this 
regard go well beyond those in the November 6 Proposed Final 
Judgment and appear to be aimed at benefitting Microsoft's 
competitors rather than insuring a level playing field for all 
participants in the software industry. In the absence of compelling 
justification for wholesale and forced disclosure of a company's 
intellectual property, the harm caused by such disclosure is 
unwarranted and harmful to the entire technology marketplace. The 
vigorous protection of intellectual property has fueled the rapid 
and dynamic growth of the technology industry. Actions that erode 
protections for intellectual property should be viewed with great 
trepidation.
    The long term effects of the conduct restrictions proposed by 
the non-settling States encourage continued litigation, rather than 
competition in the marketplace.

CONCLUSION

    The Microsoft settlement and any remedies imposed must be judged 
in the context of the Court of Appeals opinion. The non-settling 
States remedial proposals go well beyond the liability found by the 
Court of Appeals. The Microsoft case, and this Committee hearing, 
should not be a forum for any government actor, no matter how well-
intentioned, to try to reconfigure the marketplace based on 
guesswork and supposition. History has told us time and time again 
that movement's efforts to micro-manage markets are far more likely 
to fail than to succeed. Consumers stand to lose the most.
    The Plaintiffs have never challenged Microsoft's acquisition of 
its dominant position in the operating system market. Microsoft was 
propelled into this position as a result of consumer choice. 
Consumers derive great benefit from the adoption of a standardized 
operating system platform. State antitrust officials and the courts 
should be wary of imposing remedies that would interfere with the 
positive network effects resulting from the large number of 
consumers who choose Windows.
    Government intervention in the marketplace can only be justified 
if the intervention is a reasonably accurate proxy for the actions 
that would occur in a competitive market. Otherwise, the unintended 
consequences of well-meaning government intervention are very likely 
to do more harm than good. It is simply beyond the capability of the 
courts and regulators to predict the direction and development of 
almost any market, let alone the highly dynamic markets in the 
technology industry. This counsels against the extensive and rigid 
conduct restrictions proposed by the non-settling States.
    Statement of Dave Baker
    Vice President for Law and Public Policy
    EarthLink, Inc.
    Senate Judiciary Committee
    Hearing on
    ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future
    Wednesday, December 12, 2001
    My name is Dave Baker and I am Vice President for Law and Public 
Policy with EarthLink. EarthLink is the nation's 3rd largest 
Internet Service Provider, bringing reliable high-speed internet 
connections to approximately 4.8 million subscribers every day. 
Headquartered in Atlanta, EarthLink provides a full range of 
innovative access, hosting and e-commerce solutions to thousands of 
communities over a nationwide network of dial-up points of presence, 
as well as high-speed access and wireless technologies.
    EarthLink is concerned with the potential for Microsoft to use 
its affirmed monopoly position in operating systems to leverage its 
position in innovative Internet services provided by Internet 
Service Providers (ISPs) including Internet access and associated 
services.
    The proposed Justice Department settlement with Microsoft allows 
them to continue to restrict competition and choice in ISP services 
by failing to classify e-mail client software and Internet access 
software as ``middleware''. By not including e-mail client 
and internet access software in the definition of middleware, this 
proposed settlement allows Microsoft to force OEMs to carry 
Microsoft's own ISP service, Microsoft Network (MSN), while 
restricting them from carrying competing e-mail client software or 
internet access software. The federal settlement also allows 
Microsoft to prohibit OEMs from removing the MSN from their 
products.
    The alternate settlement proposed by nine States and the 
District of Columbia would define middleware to include e-mail 
client software and Internet access software, thereby preserving 
competition in these markets. This distinction in the definition of 
middleware makes a huge difference given the diverse nature of the 
ISP marketplace. Many ISPs will never find a place on the Microsoft 
desktop if Microsoft can prohibit OEMs from including competing e-
mail client software and Internet access software, or if Microsoft 
is able to make such software incompatible with the Windows 
operating system.
    ISPs provide distinct and valuable services beyond mere Internet 
connectivity. For example, ISPs provide specialized content, web 
hosting, e-commerce, content specialized for wireless access, and 
other innovative new products. ISPs provide free local computer and 
Internet classes for their customers, include local content on their 
home page, or provide free connections for community groups. 
EarthLink, while serving a broad range of users across the country, 
has made greater privacy protection a distinguishing feature of its 
ISP service. This diverse choice of service and source of future 
innovation is at risk if Microsoft is able to leverage its existing 
monopoly power in operating systems to all but force consumers to 
use its Internet access service, MSN, at the expense of other 
choices in internet service.
    Over the past few years, Microsoft has bundled its internet 
service more and more closely with succeeding versions of the 
Windows operating system. This has allowed Microsoft to constrict 
consumer choice in Internet access providers. In Windows 98, 
consumers had a choice of several ISPs from which to select for 
Internet access. Each ISP was listed in the same manner, with equal 
sized boxes on a referral server screen. In Windows Me, the MSN 
butterfly icon was the only ISP icon featured right on the desktop, 
giving it an advantage shared by no other ISP. Consumer had to click 
down through several screens to find other ISPs. Now, Windows XP has 
a dialogue boxes that pops up and several times to try to sway 
consumers to sign up for MSN internet service. While it is possible 
to select another ISP, this choice is buried and requires greater 
effort and diligence on the part of the consumer. This illustrates 
how Microsoft can use its control of the desktop to promote its own 
Internet access and related content, applications and services.
    Under the proposed federal settlement, even this limited choice 
can be eliminated by Microsoft, since they would be free to restrict 
OEMs from offering other ISPs on the desktop or from removing 
Microsoft's own icons from the desktop.
    On a related topic, Microsoft recently offered to settle 
numerous lawsuits by donating computer equipment to schools. Apple 
Computer has raised concerns that this donation would give Microsoft 
an inappropriate advantage in gaining greater market share for its 
operating system in the competitive school marketplace. EarthLink is 
also concerned that Microsoft would use the proposed computer 
donations (a good thing) to their own advantage by providing these 
schools with a product that bundles Internet access with equipment 
and operating software. This would again unfairly steer consumers, 
including as here those least able

[[Page 30233]]

to exercise choice in their internet applications, into using just 
associated Microsoft products.
    We note that the E-Rate, the federal grant program for school 
connectivity, requires that schools be allowed to purchase Internet 
access from a range of competitive providers. The movement's clear 
intent is for schools to have a choice of competitive Internet 
access providers, in order to promote the broadest selection of 
services, diversity and choice of features, and lowest prices for 
Internet access. This intent would be undermined if Microsoft uses 
its proposed computer donations as a ``Trojan horse'' to 
install yet more of its own e-mail client and Internet access 
software. We encourage the preservation of choice for these schools 
and their students in their selection of Internet access and related 
services.
    EarthLink is concerned that just as Microsoft used its Windows 
operating system monopoly to force consumers to use the Microsoft 
browser, Internet Explorer, at the expense of competitors such as 
Netscape Navigator, Microsoft is now seeking to use the same 
leverage to force consumers to use their Internet service provider, 
MSN. EarthLink supports the alternate settlement proposed by the 
nine States to preserve competition in the market for email client 
software and Internet access software by including these services in 
the definition of middleware. As it considers the future of the 
Internet marketplace, we encourage the Committee not to allow 
Microsoft to leverage its existing monopoly into new and evolving 
Internet services. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to share 
our views with the Committee.
    BRIEFING
    PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT IN
    U.S. v. 31ICROSOFT
    December, 2001
    STATUS OF THE CASE
    The U.S. Government and approximately half of the litigating 
states have decided to settle the case with Microsoft on terms the 
software industry views as inadequate under the standards for relief 
under decades of antitrust precedent. Nine states plus the District 
of Columbia have chosen to move forward with a hearing on remedy. 
Discovery is underway for that hearing and witness lists are 
currently being prepared for a trial set to commence in early March.
    Pursuant to the District Court's order, the United States must 
simultaneously submit the settlement under the Antitrust Procedures 
and Penalties Act, which is described below.

THE TUNNEY ACT

    The Tunney Act, formally known as the Antitrust Procedures and 
Penalties Act, was originally introduced by Senator John Tunney in 
September, 1972, and was signed into law by President Ford on 
December 21, 1974. The relevant sections of the Tunney Act were 
passed in part as a reaction to the scandal that erupted after the 
government settled its antitrust investigation of ITT (on grounds 
very favorable to the defendant), and it was discovered that ITT had 
lobbied extensively and engaged in secret negotiations to pressure 
the Department of Justice to agree to that settlement.
    Microsoft has made no secret of the political influence it has 
sought to create during this trial. Its political contributions, 
lobbying, grassroots, and public relations efforts are unprecedented 
and well documented.3 Some might say there is an obvious and direct 
The Tunney Act also made certain antitrust violations felonies, 
rather than misdemeanors; increased the available penalties a court 
could impose; and instituted a variety of procedural reforms 
designed to expedite the trial and appeal of government antitrust 
cases. 2 See Kintner, Federal Antitrust Law 40.25 at 208 n.721; 5 
Von Kalinowski et al., Antirust Laws and Trade Regulation 2d 
96.0311] at 96-12 n.4. 3 ``Microsoft Targets Funding for 
Antitrust Office.'' Dan Morgan and Juliet Eilperin. Washington 
Post October 15.1999. ``Pro-Microsoft 1obbving. to limit 
antitrust funding irks, top lawmakers.'' The Wall Street 
Journal October 15. 1999. ``Microsoft Paid For Ads Against DoJ 
Case.'' Madeleine Acer.
    TechWeb September 20, 1999. ``Microsoft Paid For Ads 
Backing Its Trial Position.'' David Bank. The Wall Street 
Journal September 20, 1999. ``Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing It 
In Trial.'' Seattle Times September 19, 1999. ``Pro-
Microsoft Ads Were Funded by Software Giant.'' Greg Miller. Los 
Angeles Times September 18. 1999. ``Microsoft Paid for Ads 
About Trial.'' Associated Press September 18. 1999. 
``Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads Backing It in Antitrust 
Suit.'' Joel Brinkley. New York Times September 18, 1999 
``Rivals fear Microsoft will cut a deal.'' John Hendren. 
The Seatile Times June 21, 2001. ``Bush's Warning: Don't Assume 
Favors Are Due.'' Gerald F. Seib The Wall Street Journal 
January 17. 2001. ``Bounty Payments are offered for pro- 
Microsoft letters and calls.'' The Wall Street Journal October 
20, 2000. ``Microsoft is Source of ``Soft Money'' 
Funds Behind Ads in Michigan's Senate Race.'' John R. Wilke. 
The Wall Street Journal October 16, 2000. ``Microsoft leans 
creatively on levers of political power as breakup decision looms, 
``stealth'' lobbying efforts aim for survival.'' Jim 
Drinkard and Owen Ulmann. USA Today May 30, 2000. ``Microsoft's 
All-Out Counterattack.'' Dan Carney. Amy Borrus and Jay Greene. 
BusinessWeek May 15, 2000. ``Aggressiveness: It's Part of Their 
DNA.'' Jay Greene, Peter Burrows and Jim Kerstetter.
    BusinessWeek May 15. 2000. ``The Unseemly Campaign of 
Microsoft.'' Mike France. Business Week April 24. 2000. 
``Microsoft's Lobbving Abuses.'' Editorial. New York Times 
November 1, 1999 ``Awaiting Verdict, Microsoft Starts Lobbying 
Campaign.'' Joel Brinkley. New York Times November 1, 1999. 
``Microsoft Seeks Help Of Holders.'' John R. Wilke. The 
Wall Street Journal November 1.1999. causal connection between these 
activities and the weak nature of the proposed settlement, proving 
if nothing else that the public policy concerns that spawned the 
Tunney Act in the first place have been validated. Judge Kollaar-
Kotelly will be charged with the responsibility of determining the 
extent to which the public interest has been affected by the 
unprecedented politicization of this law enforcement matter. As the 
Senate Report that accompanied the Tunney Act explained, 
``[t]he primary focus of the Department [of Justice]'s 
enforcement policy should be to obtain a judgment either litigated 
or consensual--which protects the public by insuring healthy 
competition in the future.'' While Congress did not want to 
discourage settlement of antitrust litigation--significantly 
more than half of government antitrust suits are settled -- it 
determined that judges should independently review all settlement 
agreements, with adequate involvement by the public and others in 
the relevant industry, before entering a consent judgment.
    Under the Tunney Act, the United States needs to publicize the 
settlement agreement, invite and respond to public and industry, 
comments on the details of that agreement, and defend the agreement 
in court--where the judge by statute would need to determine 
independently that the agreement was in the ``public 
interest.''
    Even though Judge Kollar-Kotelly urged both sides to settle the 
case, the goal of any settlement must be to achieve the public 
interest objectives of the lawsuit more efficiently and with more 
certainty that the litigation process. Merely achieving an end to 
the litigation, and thus rewarding Microsoft for its intransigence 
over the years is not a legitimate goal, nor should it play any part 
in settlement analysis. In fact, the standards for review under the 
Tunney Act are substantially higher in this case than in typical 
Tunney Act cases. That is because there has never been a settlement 
- and therefore Tunney Act review--of an antitrust case that 
has been affirmed by an Appeals Court. Since there is no longer any 
litigation risk--or question about liability or the strength of 
the government's case the only appropriate interpretation of the 
``public interest'' is in the context of the standards set 
forth by the Court of Appeals. ``Microsoft's Bad 
Lobbying.'' Editorial. Washington Post October 24 1999. 
``Microsoft Attempt To Cut Justice Funding Draws Fire.'' 
David Lawsky. Reuters October 17, 1999. ``Microsoft Targets 
Funding for Antitrust Office.'' Dan Morgan and Juliet Eilperin. 
Washington Post October 15. 1999.
    ``Pro-Microsoft 1obbying to limit antitrust funding irks 
top lawmakers.'' The Wall Street Journal October 15, 1999. 
``Microsoft Paid For Ads Against DoJ Case.'' Madeleine 
Acev. TechWeb September 20. 1999.
    ``Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing Its Trial Position.'' 
David Bank. The Wall Street Journal September 20, 1999. 
``Microsoft Paid For Ads Backing It In Trial.'' Seattle 
Times September 19. 1999. ``Pro-Microsoft Ads Were Funded by 
Software Giant.'' Greg Miller. Los Angeles Times September 18. 
1999. ``Microsoft Paid for Ads About Trial.'' Associated 
Press September 18.1999. ``Microsoft Covered Cost of Ads 
Backing It in Antitrust Suit'' Joel Brinkley. New York Times 
September 18. 1999.

SUMMARY OF THE WEAKNESSES OF THE PFJ's

    In the sections following we discuss--provision-by-
provision--weaknesses in the Proposed Final Judgment. In this 
section, we focus on the more important issues of What is not 
included in the settlement in the first place. Remedy Ignores Clear 
Guidance of

[[Page 30234]]

Court of Appeals The central issue with the proposed remedy is its 
fundamental failure to meet the standards so clearly set forth by 
the Court of Appeals. Rather, the Department of Justice has 
articulated a view that all it must do is create a narrow set of 
remedies, which merely prevents Microsoft from engaging in the 
precise types of unlawful conduct against new competitive threats in 
the future. This view ignores the fact that unrestrained monopolists 
are likely to engage in new, creative forms of predation, which is 
why the Supreme Court has admonished the Department of Justice to 
``close the untraveled roads to monopolization, not just the 
traveled roads.''
    More troubling, the Department ignores the fact that competitive 
threats to Microsoft's monopoly do not appear with regularity. In 
fact, the dual threats of Netscape's Navigator browser and Sun's 
Java programming language--propelled by the Internet 
boom--may well be once in a lifetime competitive events. That 
is one of many important reasons why it is particularly 
inappropriate for the Department of Justice to allow Microsoft to 
keep all the ``fruits'' of its unlawful activity without 
any regard for the competitive impact on the industry or consumers.
    Most industry observers have sadly reached the conclusion that 
the Department of Justice was prepared and eager to settle this case 
at an{time} , price. If permitted to stand, antitrust law 
enforcement in the high-technology industry--which many have 
described as the sector that now drives the economy--will be 
effectively repealed. Future antitrust defendants will follow the 
yellow brick road paved by Microsoft: deny that you are a monopoly 
regardless of the court findings, outlast and outspending your 
governmental adversaries and trust that sooner or later, the 
government will accept a meaningless settlement primary for the sake 
of settlement alone.
    It is the responsibility of the Justice Department not to lose 
interest in enforcing the laws necessary to insuring competition and 
consumer choice. Settling on the cheap the most important antitrust 
case in a generation in the most important industry in America is an 
unwarranted abdication of responsibility. If permitted to stand, 
consumers will pay the price for generations to come in the form of 
diminished choices, higher prices, and stifled innovation.
    No Remedy for the Browser or Java
    The DoJ remedy is inadequate in the area of so-called 
``middleware.'' ``Middleware'' is a critical 
concept in this case because middleware is the software layer 
that--in a competitive market--could undermine Microsoft's 
ability to protect its monopoly. Both Netscape's Navigator and the 
Java programming language were examples of middleware threats, yet 
the Proposed Final Judgment is silent on both the Browser and Java. 
These middleware and platform threats were the central focus of the 
appeals court decision. It is insupportable to settle for a remedy 
that the Department of Justice knows will not have any competitive 
impact in the central markets at issue in the case.
    Remedy Relies too Heavily on PC Companies (OEMs) As a general 
matter, the middleware--and other remedies--imposed by the 
Department of Justice relies far too heavily on PC companies 
exercising flexibility in product design, rather than affirmatively 
requiring Microsoft to comply with the antitrust laws. It is 
possible--in fact, likely--to imagine a result where the 
PC companies choose not to exercise their new rights under a 
settlement. As a practical matter, that would leave the government 
with no remedy for the most important parts of the Appeals Court's 
ruling.
    It is inappropriate for the government to 
impose--transfer--its remedial obligations under the 
antitrust laws to PC companies, which are wholly dependent upon the 
monopolist. The DoJ seems more willing to impose the burden of 
forcing Microsoft to comply with the antitrust laws on PC companies 
rather than impose even the slightest restrictions on 
Microsoft--the adjudicated monopolist--to change the way 
it does business. As both an economic and a practical matter, the 
PFJ imposes greater burdens on PC companies than it does on the 
adjudicated monopolist Remedy/ow7ores Key Finding of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals Nothing in the agreement prohibits Microsoft's 
``commingling of code'' or binding of its middleware to 
the OS. This was a major issue in the case; the Court of Appeals 
specifically found Microsoft's commingling of browser and OS code to 
be unlawful.
    Microsoft petitioned the Appeals Court for a reheating on this 
precise matter, which was summarily rejected by the court. And yet, 
after the Court clearly ruled on the rehearing, the DOJ adopts 
Microsoft's view--not the Courts. The settlement would 
explicitly permit Microsoft's commingling of code to continue.
    The danger of the absence of this provision is reinforced by 
what is found in the definition ``U,'' stating that the 
definition of what code comprises a Windows Operating System Product 
``shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole 
discretion.'' Thus, Microsoft can, over time, render all the 
protections for middleware meaningless, by binding and commingling 
code, and redefining the OS to include the bound/commingled 
applications.
    Remedy ``Requires'' or ``Mandates'' 
Microsoft to Continue Business As Usual Two of the key provisions of 
the PFJ cited by DOJ as instrumental in restoring competition merely 
require Microsoft continue to engage in business as usual. First, 
DOJ points to the provision that allows PC companies and end users 
to remove ``end user access'' to Microsoft middleware 
(i.e. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, 
etc). It is important to understand that all ``end user 
access'' really means is the ability to remove the 
``icon'' for the middleware application, not the 
middleware itself. Second, DOJ ``grants'' the PC companies 
``flexibility'' to add or remove icons on the Windows 
desktop. On both points, it is apparently convenient for DOJ and 
Microsoft to forget that most of this flexibility either previously 
existed or was granted by Microsoft five months before the 
settlement on July 11th (see appendix one).
    Moreover, PC companies have always enjoyed the flexibility to 
add icons to the Windows desktop. Amazingly, the PFJ actually makes 
matters worse because it grants Microsoft the right to come back 14 
days after a consumer buys a PC and--after confirmation from 
the user--automatically deletes all the changes a PC company 
made and restores the Microsoft software. You can imagine the prompt 
now: Two weeks have passed since you bought >'our PC! Click on 
the Icon if you want to enhance your PC with better more robust 
multimedia capabilities from So, under this remedy, Microsoft gets 
to undermine the choices made by PC companies and grants Microsoft a 
``second bite at the apple'' to badger consumers 
into-- unknowingly or unwittingly--switching back to 
Microsoft's software.
    Second, DOJ claims credit for ``requiring'' Microsoft 
to disclose to third party software developers the Applications 
Programming Interfaces (APIs) for Windows. A review of the 
definitions reveals that the provision is essentially meaningless. 
The API disclosure requirements for new versions of the Windows 
operating systems must be disclosed in a ``timely 
manner.'' A close examination of the definition of 
``timely manner,'' exposes that this requirement is 
triggered when Microsoft distributes beta copies of its software to 
150,000 ``beta testers.'' Microsoft can be expected to 
insure that the number of beta testers remains below 150,000, thus 
exempting itself from the disclosure requirements in the first 
place. More telling is the fact that Microsoft never ever had 
150,000 ``beta testers'' for Windows XP, Windows 
``98, or Windows ``95.
    But astonishingly, DOJ apparently did not make the effort to 
learn that Microsoft discloses information to third party software 
developers anyway, through a program called the Microsoft Developers 
Network (MSDN) (see http://www.msdn.microsoft.com). The MSDN program 
is ``an essential resource for developers using Microsoft 
tools, products, and technologies. It contains a bounty of technical 
programming information, including sample code, documentation, 
technical articles, and reference guides.'' Why does Microsoft 
give out this information? Because the most important economic law 
of the software industry is that the more programs you have running 
on your platform (like Windows) the more valuable your platform is 
relative to competitors. So, the more applications Microsoft has 
running on Windows, the more valuable Windows becomes.
    In the spring of 1995, Netscape requested from Microsoft the 
APIs necessary to insure that its browser would work with the 
Windows ``95, scheduled for later that year. Microsoft resisted 
sharing this information for nearly a year, until well after Windows 
``95 was released. Because Windows ``95 did not involve 
150,000 beta testers, Netscape would not have had the right to 
receive the critical APIs if this remedy had been in place in 1995. 
Thus Microsoft's ability to arbitrarily withhold APIs from those 
that would deign to enter into competition with Windows is left 
intact.
    Remedy Ignores Fundamental Economics of the Software Industry
    The more developers that support Windows, the more valuable 
Windows

[[Page 30235]]

becomes. That is the fundamental economic reality of the industry. 
That is also why the ``flexibility'' to remove ``end 
user access'' to Microsoft's applications is so woefully 
inadequate. The fact is that under this remedy, regardless of 
whether consumers or PC companies affirmatively decide to remove a 
particular Microsoft middleware application (i.e. browsers, media 
player, instant messenger, e-mail, etc.) DOJ's remedy permits all of 
the code to remain. The impact of this decision is the third party 
developers will always write software to the middleware platform 
that is present on the largest number of PCs.
    Under the PFJ, that middleware will always be Microsoft's 
middleware and non- Microsoft's middleware threats will never have a 
chance a attracting a large enough developer following to displace 
Windows. In response to a question about this precise issue in the 
Wall Street Journal, Charles James responded, ``I don't 
care.'' (check either Nov. 11 or 12 WSJ).
    Remedy is Unenforceable and Riddled with Loopholes
    In addition, too many of the provisions require a mini-retrial 
to be enforced. In numerous places throughout Section III, the 
limitations on Microsoft's conduct are basically rephrased versions 
of the Rule of Reason. In other words, the constraints on Microsoft 
(once the exceptions are taken into account) devolve into a mandate 
that Microsoft act ``reasonably.'' For example, in 
III.F.2, Microsoft may place enter into restrictive agreements with 
ISV's activities if they are ``reasonably necessary.'' 
Likewise, the Joint Venture provisions found in III.G. also 
``reasonably necessary'' test.
    Aside from the obvious concern about Microsoft's willingness to 
do so given its track record, this formulation is problematic for 
two other reasons. First, it does little more than restate existing 
antitrust law (such provisions cannot be said to be 
``remedial'' if they, in essence, are merely directives to 
refrain from future illegal acts). And second, in terms of 
enforcement, alleged violations of such ``be reasonable'' 
provisions can only be arrested through proceedings that will 
become, in essence, mini-retrials of U.S. v. Microsoft itself.
    Moreover, the proposed remedy follows timelines that are too 
loose and too generous to a company with the engineering resources 
and product-update capabilities of Microsoft. Microsoft is given 
almost a year before making even the most modest changes. For 
example, the ``icon'' remedy discussed above merely 
requires Microsoft to allow PC companies and end users to remove the 
icon for particular programs from the Windows desktop. This 
functionality is readily available in Windows today. But even the 
more significant step of including the ``icon'' in the 
``add / remove'' utility would require a trivial degree of 
engineering. Yet Microsoft is given a year--20 percent of the 
term of the decree -to implement even this rudimentary changes. 
Microsoft won the ``Browser War'' in less than a year. The 
Devil is in the Definitions
    There are literally dozens of provisions that sound promising 
until the definitions reveal that in fact Microsoft has sole 
discretion to determine whether or not the provisions are triggered 
at all. Just a few obvious examples:
    As discussed above, the API disclosure requirements for new 
versions of the Windows operating systems are triggered only when 
Microsoft distributes beta copies of its software to 150,000 
``beta testers.'' Microsoft can be certain to stop beta 
distribution well before those unprecedented number of testers 
receive beta copies in the first place. And even if Microsoft 
accidentally distributed 150,000 beta versions of Windows, the term 
``beta tester'' is not defined anyway, giving Microsoft 
yet another obvious way to evade the disclosure 
provisions--which again are being touted as the centerpiece of 
the agreement.
    Probably the most gratuitous provision comes at the last line of 
the PFJ. Definition ``U'' of the Windows Operating System 
Product definition, states: ``The software code that comprises 
a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by Microsoft 
in its sole discretion.'' This language, of course, has no 
practical import for the purposes of the PFJ except that it lets 
Microsoft evade many of the settlements provisions. It also strikes 
most observers as odd that an antitrust decree grants explicitly 
grants complete latitude to the defendant and seems to provide 
Microsoft with a judicially approved monopoly over the most 
important distribution channel in the software industry: Windows.

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE PFJ

    Some obvious problems with the agreement are discernable 
immediately. Below, we identify the most unsettling of those 
problems. Perhaps some are not in fact problems, but merely 
questions of misreading of the agreement; of course, the fact that 
reasonable people can read the agreement differently is itself 
indicative of the problem presented by it, given that Microsoft will 
surely interpret it as a determined and unrepentant monopolist.

A. Retaliation

    The Scope of the Protection is Narrow: Most significantly, 
Microsoft is constrained only from the specified forms of 
retaliation. If it retaliates against a PC company for any non-
specified reason, that retaliation is not prohibited. This 
formulation is particularly problematic because the protected PC 
company activities are narrowly and specifically defined. 
Retaliation against a PC company for installing a non-Microsoft 
application that does not meet the middleware definition is NOT 
prohibited; nor is retaliation against a PC company for removing a 
MSFT application that does not meet the middleware definition.
    For example:
    MSN and MSN Messenger are not middleware under the definition of 
a Microsoft Middleware Product. If a PC removes the icon and start 
menu promotion of MSN and/or MSN Messenger, it can be subjected to 
retaliation.
    Windows Movie Maker or the Windows photo editing software is not 
middleware so if a PC company decides to remove either of these 
products, Microsoft can retaliate.
    More generally, it is odd to have a formulation that de facto 
approves of Microsoft's retaliation against PC companies, except 
where that retaliation is forbidden. And, it is odd that any certain 
types of retaliation (i.e., retaliation by changing contractual 
relations and retaliation by changing promotional arrangements) are 
forbidden, as opposed to prohibiting any form of retaliation 
whatsoever.
    Non-Monetary Compensation Provision is Far too Narrow Microsoft 
is free to retaliate against PC companies that promote withholding 
any existing form of ``non-monetary Compensation'' 
introduced forms of non-monetary Consideration'' may not be 
withheld. competition by - only ``newly Termination Clause Will 
Intimidate PC companies Microsoft can terminate, without notice, a 
PC companies Windows license, after sending the PC company two 
notices that it believes it is violating its license. There need not 
be any adjudication or determination by any independent tribunal 
that Microsoft's claims are correct; only two notices to any PC 
company of a putative violation, and thereafter, Microsoft may 
terminate without even giving notice. This provision means that the 
PC companies are, at any time, just two registered letters away from 
an unannounced economic calamity. It will render the PC companies 
severely limited in their willingness to promote products that 
compete with Microsoft.
    Pricing Schemes Will Allow Microsoft to Avoid Effect of Decree 
Microsoft can price Windows at a high price, and then put economic 
pressure on the PC company to use only Microsoft applications 
through the provision that Microsoft can provide unlimited 
consideration to PC companies for distributing or promoting 
Microsoft's services or products. The limitation that these payments 
must be ``commensurate with the absolute level or amount 
of'' PC company expenditures is hollow--given that it is 
not clear how the PC companies costs will be accounted for, for this 
purpose.

B. Pricing

    Microsoft Can Use Rebates to Eviscerate Competition
    Under the settlement, Microsoft can provide unlimited 
``market development allowances, programs, or other discounts 
in connection with Windows Operating System Products.'' This 
provision essentially eviscerates the entire scheme of PC company 
choice, functioning the same way as the rebate provision discussed 
above, but without any tether or limiting principle whatsoever. 
Simply put, MSFT can charge $150 per copy of Windows, but then 
provide a $99 ``market development allowance'' for PC 
companies that install Windows Media Player as opposed to Real 
Networks media player. Presumably, this is intend to be prescribed 
by III.B.3.c, which provides that ``discounts or their 
award'' shall not be ``based on or impose any criterion or 
requirement that is otherwise inconsistent with ... this Final 
Judgment,'' but this circular and self-referential provision 
does not ensure that the practice identified above is prohibited.

[[Page 30236]]

C. PC Company Licenses

    Microsoft Retains Control of Desktop Innovation Microsoft 
retains control of desktop innovation, by being able to prohibit PC 
companies from installing or displaying icons or other shortcuts to 
non-Microsoft software/products/services, if Microsoft does not 
provide the same software/product/service. For example, if Microsoft 
does not include a media player shortcut inside its ``My 
Music'' folder, it can forbid the PC companies from doing the 
same. This turns innovation and the premise that PC companies be 
permitted to differentiate their products on its head.
    For example, Sony--as a PC company and a major force in the 
music and photography industries--would be uniquely positioned 
to differentiate the ``My Music'' and ``My 
Photos'' folder. And yet, Sony's ability to do turns solely on 
the extent to which Microsoft chooses to unleash competition in 
these areas. Microsoft Retains Control of Desktop Promotion.'' 
Microsoft also, very oddly, can control the extent to which non-
Microsoft middleware is promoted on the desktop, by virtue of a 
limitation that PC companies can promote such software at the 
conclusion of a boot sequence or an Internet hook-up, via a user 
interface that is ``of similar size and shape to the user 
interface provided by the corresponding Microsoft middleware.'' 
Thus, Microsoft sets the parameters for competition and user 
interface.
    Promotional Flexibility for Internet Access Providers Only, and 
Only for the PC companies ``own'' Internet Access Provider 
(IAP)u) PC companies are allowed to offer IAP promotions at the end 
of the boot sequence, but not promotions for other products. Also, 
the phrase that defines the scope of this flexibility (a PC 
companies ``own IAP offer'') is ambiguous: it is not clear 
if the PC companies right is limited to offering an IAP product that 
is marketed under the PC companies brand, or if this includes any 
IAP that an PC company may reach an agreement with to promote in 
this space. The latter would obviously give the PC companies more 
flexibility.

D. API Disclosure

    APIs Defined Too Narrowly
    Microsoft can evade this provision by ``hard-wiring'' 
links to its applications, and through other predatory coding 
schemes. The disclosure is limited to ``APIs and related 
Documentation.'' This may be too narrow and can be evaded. 
Moreover, the provision for the disclosure of ``Technical 
Information'' found in Judge Jackson's interim conduct remedies 
has been eliminated. These disclosures are necessary to provide 
effective interoperability.

E. Server Interoperability Issues (also found in III, E, I, H and J)

    Only Full Interoperability Can Reduce Microsoft's Barriers to 
Desktop Competition The DOJ's proposed server remedy will fail to 
provide meaningful, competitive interoperability between Microsoft 
desktops and non-Microsoft servers.
    The applications barrier to entry is central to this case and to 
Microsoft's desktop monopoly. A remedy that provides true server 
interoperability can be a powerful tool to reduce the applications 
barrier to entry. The server has the same, or indeed more, potential 
to provide an alternative application platform to the desktop as did 
the browser or any other desktop runtime. In that sense it is 
directly analogous to middleware products.
    Microsoft has plainly recognized the threat that non-Microsoft 
servers pose as an alternative applications platform and has acted 
to exclude those products from full interoperation with the desktop 
and to advantage its own server products. It is able to do that 
because it controls the means by which servers may interoperate with 
the functions and features of the Windows desktop. In order to 
succeed in establishing non-Microsoft servers as an effective 
alternative application platform, both consumers and application 
developers have to be convinced that such servers can overcome the 
interoperability barriers that Microsoft has erected and have become 
viable alternatives to Microsoft's own servers, which of course 
fully interoperate with the desktop.
    The proposed decree allows Microsoft to continue to exploit 
dependencies between its desktop applications or its desktop 
Middleware and its servers or handheld devices to exclude server and 
handheld competition. ]he New Order Requires Less Disclosure Than 
the Original Order The interim conduct order imposed by Judge 
Jackson (see Final Judgment Section 3(b) (iii)) required Microsoft 
to disclose all APIs, Communications Interfaces and Technical 
Information (i.e., any and all possible technical dependencies) 
between (a) software installed on any device (including servers and 
handhelds) and (b) any Microsoft Operating System or Middleware 
installed on a PC.
    But the Proposed Final Judgment discloses less information (no 
server APIs and no Technical Information) between fewer platforms 
(no client OS-to-server application disclosure; no unbundled client 
Middleware-to-server disclosure; no client OS-to- handheld 
disclosure; and no client Middleware-to-handheld disclosure; with no 
access to source code, and no provision for timely or updated 
disclosures.
    Consequently, unlike old 3(b)(iii), the PFJ (Section 3(E)) 
permits Microsoft to push functionality from the OS to the 
application layer in order to avoid disclosure. ]he Failure to 
Define ``Interoperate'' Is A Huge Mistake Neither section 
3(E) nor any other provision of the proposal defines the meaning of 
``interoperate.'' The failure to define 
``interoperate'' is tantamount to the Justice Department's 
prior failure to define ``integrate'' in the 1995 consent 
decree, and will form the basis for unending and bitter future 
disputes over the scope of Microsoft's disclosure obligation.
    ``Communications Protocol'' is Defined Too Narrowly 
and Too Ambiguous The definition of ``Communications 
Protocol,'' which determines the scope of server information to 
be disclosed by Microsoft, is highly ambiguous, and potentially very 
narrow in scope:
    It is limited to Windows Server Operating System, and thus is 
unclear whether it includes Internet Information Server (Microsoft's 
Web Server) or Windows Media Server, both of which are shipped with 
Windows 2000 Server.
    It is unclear whether ``rules for information 
exchange'' that ``govern the format, semantics, timing 
sequencing, and error control of messages exchanged over a 
network'' means the rules for transmitting information packets 
over a network, or the rules for formatting and interpreting 
information within such packets.
    It is unclear what the last sentence of the definition of 
Communication Protocol means when it excludes from the information 
to be disclosed ``protocols to remotely administer Windows 2000 
Server and its successors.''
    Even in its broadest possible meaning, Communications Protocols 
is insufficiently broad or comprehensive to require disclosure of 
the information needed to permit interoperability between non-
Microsoft servers and the full features and functions of Windows 
desktops. For example, no conceivable interpretation of 
Communications Protocol would appear to require disclosure of 
Microsoft's COM+. 7he Definition of ``Windows Operating System 
Product'' Gives Microsoft the Ability to Avoid Disclosure.
    The scope of Microsoft's disclosure obligation is determined in 
large part by the meaning of ``Windows Operating System 
Product.'' The definition of Windows Operating System Product 
leaves Microsoft free to determine in ``its sole 
discretion'' what software code comprises a ``Windows 
Operating System Product.'' In other words, Microsoft's 
disclosure obligation is subject entirely to its discretion.
    The Room for Dispute Means No Meaningful Disclosure is'' 
Likely to Occur Much Before the Judgment Expires: The ambiguities 
and uncertainties in the scope and meaning of section 3(E) and the 
definitions on which it depends means that a protracted battle will 
inevitably be required to obtain Microsoft's full compliance with 
its disclosure obligations. The 9 month delay in Microsoft's 
obligation to begin disclosure means that a significant portion of 
the 5 year remedial term will have expired, and that one product 
generation at least will have passed, before any disclosure is made. 
Combined with the fact that there is no explicit provision for 
additional disclosures for upgraded or successor products, and no 
requirement for timely disclosure, means that there is not likely to 
be more than one disclosure for one product generation only.
    Microsoft's ability to exploit ambiguity, and the discretionary 
powers given to the company, the defendant here, must be eliminated. 
The document simply fails the test of clarity and specificity needed 
to be a meaningful contract between the United States, the state 
plaintiffs, and Microsoft.
    Section 3(J)'s Carve Out Eliminates The Most Important 
Disclosures What little section 3(E) provides, section 3(J) takes 
away by permitting Microsoft to refuse to disclose the very 
protocols and technical dependencies it is currently using to 
prevent non-Microsoft servers from interoperating with Microsoft 
desktops and servers.

[[Page 30237]]

G. Anti-Competitive Agreements

    Joint Development Agreements Can Subvert Protections of 
Settlement The protection against anti-competitive agreements is 
substantially undermined by the exception that allows Microsoft to 
launch ``joint development or joint services 
arrangements'' with PC companies and others. Under this 
provision, Microsoft can ``invite'' PC companies, ISVs, 
and other industry players to enter into ``joint 
development'' agreements, and then resort to an array of 
exclusionary practices. For example, Microsoft invites PC company X 
to form a ``joint development'' project to create 
``Windows for X,'' a ``new product'' to be 
installed on the PC company's PCs. So long as Microsoft's activities 
are cloaked under this rubric, it is exempt from the ban on 
requiring the PC company to ship a fixed percentage of its units 
loaded with Microsoft's applications, and other protections designed 
to promote competition.

1. Desktop Customization

    Add/Remove is For Icons Only, Not the Middleware Itself The add/
remove provisions in the agreement only allow for removal of end 
user access to Microsoft middleware, not the middleware itself. This 
position is not consistent with the language in the Court of Appeals 
opinion on commingling or the ``add/remove'' issue. For 
example, a PC company or a consumer might choose to eliminate 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer and replace it with Netscape's 
Navigator as the default. Under this provision, Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer--not Netscape's Navigator--is still used in the 
MyDocuments, MyMusic, MyPictures and Windows Explorer folders.
    More substantially, if MSFT's middleware remains on PCs (even 
with the end user access masked), then applications developers will 
continue to write applications that run on that 
middleware--reinforcing the applications barrier to entry that 
was at the heart of this case. Allowing MSFT to forbid the PC 
companies from removing MSFT middleware, and allowing MSFT to 
configure Windows to make it impossible for end users to do the 
same, allows Microsoft to reinforce the applications barrier to 
entry, irremediably.
    As we have seen with the implementation of this approach (i.e., 
icon removal only) with regard to Internet Explorer in Windows XP, 
MSFT can use the presentation of this option in the utility to make 
it less desirable to end users. Moreover, limiting the required 
``add/remove'' provision to icons only is actually a step 
backward from the current state of affairs in Windows XP, where code 
is removable for several pieces of Microsoft middleware. Thus, the 
DoJ actually codifies the most limiting of consumer 
alternatives--merely removing an icon. Why Are Non-MSFT Icons 
Subject to Add/Remove ?
    The agreement gives Microsoft an added benefit: it can demand 
that PC companies include icons for non-MSFT middleware in the add/
remove utility. Why this should be required, in the absence of any 
finding that assuring the permanence of non-MSFT middleware on the 
desktop is anti-competitive, is bizarre. This essentially treats the 
victims of Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior as if they were 
equally guilty of wrongdoing.

Twelve Months To Implement is Too Long

    Most of the provisions in this section do not take effect for a 
full 12-month period--20 percent of the total length of the 
PFJ. Given Microsoft's vast engineering resources; an ability to 
instantly update its products via on-line downloads; and the just-
in-time manufacturing of the PC companies, there is no justification 
for this lengthy phase-in. Tellingly, when Microsoft made modest 
concessions in response to the Court of Appeals decision on July 
11th, it implemented these changes within three weeks (when a new 
beta version of Win XP was released). Consumers should not have to 
wait another year for the choices they deserved to be offered years 
and years ago.
    Microsoft Can Embed Middleware, And Evade Restrictions
    End users and PC companies are allowed to substitute the launch 
of a non-Microsoft Middleware product for the launch of Microsoft 
middleware only where that Microsoft middleware would be launched in 
a separate Top-Level Window and display a complete end user 
interface or a trademark. This, in essence, allows Microsoft to 
determine which middleware components will or will not be subject to 
effective competition. By embedding their middleware components in 
other middleware (and thereby not displaying it in a ``Top 
Level Window'' with all user interface elements), or by not 
branding the middleware with a trademark, Microsoft can essentially 
stop rivals from launching their products in lieu of the Microsoft 
products.
    Harder for Consumers to Choose Non-Microsoft Products than 
Microsoft Products In the same provision (III.H.2.), Microsoft may 
require an end user to confirm his/her choice of a non-Microsoft 
product, but there is no similar ``double consent'' 
requirement for Microsoft Middleware. There is no reason why it 
should be harder for users to select non-Microsoft products than 
Microsoft products.
    Microsoft Can ``Sweep'' the Desktop, Eliminate Rival 
]cons
    Additionally, the PC company flexibility provisions are 
substantially undermined by a provision that allows Microsoft to 
exploit its ``desktop sweeper'' to eliminate PC company 
installed icons by asking an end user if he/she wants the PC 
company-installed configuration wiped out after 14 days. Thus, the 
PC company flexibility provisions will only last on the desktop with 
certainty for 14 days, and after that period, persistent automated 
queries from Microsoft can reverse the effect of the PC company's 
installations. The effect of this provision is to severely devalue 
the ability of PC companies to offer premier desktop space to 
ISVs--and to undermine the ability of PC companies to 
differentiate their products and provide consumers with real 
choices. Here is an example of what a prompt might look like (which 
would have the effect of setting all of the choices and defaults 
previously picked by PC companies and consumers back to Microsoft's 
presets):
    Two weeks have passed since you bought your PC! Click on the 
Icon if you want to enhance your PC with better more robust 
multimedia capabilities from Microsoft.
    Desktop ``MFN'' Requirements
    Finally, nothing in the decree forbids Microsoft from 
requiring--especially where non- middleware is 
concerned--so-called MFN agreements from the PC companies. 
These agreements tax PC company efforts to promote Microsoft rivals 
by requiring that equal promotion or placement be given to Microsoft 
products, often without compensation.

I. Licensing Provisions

    Licenses Put in Hands of Those Who May Not Be Able to Use Them 
The PC company licensing provision is limited in its effectiveness 
because the PC companies are prevented from ``assigning, 
transferring, or sublicensing'' their rights. This may severely 
limit their ability to partner with software companies to develop 
innovative software packages to be pre-installed on PCs. This 
provision is especially harmful when contrasted with the broad 
partnering opportunities afforded to Microsoft under III.G. In 
addition, the PC company's willingness to use these 
provisions--even if they have the financial and technical 
wherewithal to do so--may be limited by the weakness of the 
retaliation provisions discussed above.
    Reciprocal License? This simply can't be true.
    The agreement requires ISVs, PC companies and other licensees to 
license back to Microsoft any intellectual property the{time} , 
develop in the course of exercising their rights under the 
settlement. But that simply rewards Microsoft for having created the 
circumstances (i.e., having acted illegally) that necessitated the 
settlement in the first place. Microsoft should not be able to 
obtain the intellectual property rights of others simply because 
those law abiding entities have been required to work with this law 
breaker.
    In addition, this provision may inadvertently work as a 
``poison pill'' to discourage ISVs, et al., from taking 
advantage of the licensing rights ostensibly provided them in III.I. 
The risk that an ISV would have to license its rights to Microsoft 
will be a substantial deterrent for that ISV from exercising its 
rights under III.I.

J. ``Security and Anti-Piracy'' Exception to API Disclosure

    The Settlement Exempts The Software and Services That Are the 
Future of Computing One of the most seemingly innocuous provisions 
in the agreement--that is in fact, one of the biggest 
loopholes--is the provision that allows MSFT to withhold from 
API, documentation or communication protocol disclosure any 
information that would ``compromise the security of .... 
digital rights management, encryption or authentication 
systems.'' The fact is that for programs to interoperate you 
must have all the information necessary. A provision that allows 
Microsoft to withhold certain information--or guarantees 
litigation over what information is exempted ensures that no program 
will ever be truly interoperable.

[[Page 30238]]

This provision raises several critical concerns: Digital Rights 
Management Exception ``Swallows'' Media Player Rule Since 
the most prevalent use of media players in the years ahead will be 
in playing content that is protected by digital rights management 
(DRM) (i.e., copyrighted content licensed to users on a ``pay-
for-play'' basis), allowing MSFT to render its DRM solution 
non-interoperable with other DRM solutions essentially means that 
non-Microsoft media players will be virtually useless when loaded on 
Windows computers.
    Authentication Exception Allows Microsoft to Control Internet 
Gateways, Server-Based Services.
    Most experts agree that the future of computing lies with 
server-based applications that consumers will access from a variety 
of devices. Indeed, Microsoft's ``.Net'' and ``.Net 
My Services'' (formerly known as Hailstorm) are evidence that 
Microsoft certainly holds this belief. These services, when linked 
with MSFT's ``Passport,'' are Microsoft's self- declared 
effort to migrate its franchise from the desktop to the Internet:
    By exempting authentication APIs and protocols from the 
settlement's disclosure requirement, the settlement exempts the most 
important applications and services that will drive the computer 
industry over the next few years. If Microsoft can wall off 
Passport, .Net, and .Net My Services (Hailstorm) with 
impunity--and link these internet/server-based applications and 
services to their desktop monopoly--then Microsoft will be in a 
commanding position to dominate the future of computing.

PFJ SECTION IV. COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

A. Enforcement Authority

    Enforcement Authority is Too Difficult to Employ Clearly, what's 
missing from the agreement is a quick, meaningful, and empowered 
mechanism for preventing and rectifying Microsoft's future 
violations of the agreement. Thus, while the provision allowing 
Microsoft to cure any violations of III C, D, E, and H before an 
enforcement action may be brought is not itself objectionable, it is 
but one of a number of provisions that make enforcing the agreement 
cumbersome, expensive, and time consuming.

B. Technical Committee

    Microsoft gets half the votes.
    In setting up the Technical Committee, Microsoft gets to appoint 
one member, the Department of Justice gets to appoint one member, 
and Microsoft and the Department jointly appoint the third. This 
formulation guarantees that at least Microsoft, the defendant, will 
approve half of the Technical Committee's members. Technical 
Committee's Investigation Allowed Only Limited Use The work of the 
Technical Committee cannot ``be admitted in any enforcement 
proceeding before the Court for any purpose,'' and the members 
of the TC are forbidden to appear. Thus, under the terms of the 
decree, the substantial time, effort, and expense that can go into a 
TC process may need to be duplicated in an enforcement 
action--adding to the complexity and expense that process will 
pose for victims of Microsoft violations.

C. Voluntary Dispute Resolution

    Source Code Access is Not Enough.
    While it is helpful that the Technical Committee will have 
access to MSFT's source code, and can resolve disputes involving 
that issue, the Technical Committee is otherwise powerless to compel 
Microsoft's compliance with the agreement in any other respect. The 
prospects that Microsoft will accept the decisions of the TC in a 
voluntary dispute resolution process are near zero. And the entire 
mechanism seems designed to drag disputes on indefinitely: no time 
limits or time lines are specified for dispute resolution.
    Thus, as noted above, there must be some compulsory means of 
dispute resolution, short of renewed litigation in the District 
Court. As it stands now, a party injured by MSFT's violation of the 
decree can:
    ï¿½ Complain to the Technical Committee, which will 
then conduct an investigation;
    ï¿½ Once the investigation is complete, the TC will 
presumably issue some decision; while the investigation is ongoing, 
the TC is supposed to consult with MSFT's Compliance Officer, for an 
indefinite period;
    ï¿½ If the TC concludes that MSFT violated the 
agreement, and MSFT does not agree to change its behavior or rectify 
the wrong, then the TC must decide whether to recommend the matter 
to US DOJ for further action;
    ï¿½ Once recommended, the U.S. DOJ--after some 
review period--y decide to take action, and apply to the court 
for a remedy, or it may not;
    ï¿½ And once the US DOJ applies for action, the process 
in court to obtain relief or remedy may extend for an indefinite 
period.
    This is obviously a lengthy and ineffective process for insuring 
that MSFT complies with its obligations under the decree. In an 
industry where time is of the essence, and where delays can be 
fatal, the delays built in that allow Microsoft to drag its feet are 
wholly unacceptable.

PFJ SECTION V. TERMINATION

A. Five Year Limit

    Five Year Coverage Is Inadequate
    Given the scope of Microsoft's violation, the time period 
required to restore effective competition, and the pattern of 
willful lawbreaking on Microsoft's part, a five-year consent decree 
is woefully inadequate.

B. Two Year Extension

    Penalty For Knowing Violations is Too Lenient
    Amazingly, the agreement provides that no matter how many 
knowing and willful violations that Microsoft engages in, the 
restrictions found in the settlement may be extended for a single 
two-year period only. Thus, if Microsoft is adjudged to have engaged 
in such a pattern of violations, it essentially has a ``free 
reign'' to repeat those violations with impunity. Moreover, 
even for a single adjudged instance of knowing and intentional 
violation, a mere two-year extension is inadequate.

PFJ SECTION VI. DEFINITIONS

A. APIs

    API Definition Too Narrow
    This is discussed above.

B. Communications Protocol

    Missing Definition, Inclusion of ``Technical 
Information:''
    While the definition of communication protocol is adequate, the 
decree is missing a definition of ``technical 
information,'' and inclusion of that material in the mandatory 
disclosures. This definition and protection were provided in the 
interim remedies entered by the District Court.

K. Microsoft Middleware Product

    Definition Exempts Too Much Middleware
    Much of the decree is based on this definition--the PC 
Company's flexibility turns on what is included or excluded from 
this category of application. And yet the definition is fatally 
flawed.
    ï¿½ First, among existing products, only the five 
listed items are ``middleware.'' That means that highly 
similar items, such as MSN, MSN Messenger, MSN Explorer, MSFT 
RunTime (the replacement for the MSFT JVM), Passport, Outlook, and 
Office are ALL excluded from the definition of middleware. Why 
Windows Messenger should be covered, but MSN Messenger should be 
exempt; or why Internet Explorer should be covered, but MSN Explorer 
should be exempt, is a mystery.
    ï¿½ Any efforts by PC companies to remove these 
Microsoft applications may be met with retaliation; end users cannot 
remove these applications (or even their icons). This is a step 
backward from the status quo (even in Windows XP); it is a gaping 
hole.
    ï¿½ Second, the generic middleware definition, which 
applies only to new products, and therefore does not capture any 
product now in existence, allows MSFT to define which products are 
included or not, by virtue of MSFT's trademark and branding choices. 
Thus, so long as MSFT buries these products inside other 
applications, they are not independently middleware.
    ï¿½ Third, as suggested in the points above, the 
definition misses the future platform challenges to Microsoft's 
Windows monopoly: web-based services. These services should be 
specifically defined, and included in the class of protected 
middleware.

N. Non-Microsoft Middleware Product

    Only Developers With REALLY Big Garages Need Apply
    The competitive offerings protected by the decree are narrowly 
limited to offerings that fall within the definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products.'' Again, as noted above, the 
guarantees of PC company flexibility, promotion, and end use choice 
apply only to these specified products, not to an,,, other software 
applications.
    And yet, sadly, this definition narrowly extends this protection 
only to applications ``of which at least one million copies 
were distributed in the United States within the previous 
year.'' Thus, an innovator in his garage, creating a new form 
of middleware, to revolutionize the computer industry, has

[[Page 30239]]

no protection from MSFT's rapacious ways until he can achieve the 
distribution of 1 million copies of his software. So much for the 
Silicon Valley myth ....
    Also, as noted above, ``web based services'' are not 
captured in this definition, notwithstanding their importance to 
future competition to the Windows OS.

R. Timely Manner

    Netscape, All Over Again
    Microsoft's obligation to disclose APIs and other materials 
needed to make applications interoperable with Windows in a 
``timely manner'' is keyed off the definition of that term 
in Section R. But, Microsoft retains complete control over this 
timeline because the definition provides that Microsoft is under no 
obligation to engage in these disclosures until it distributes a 
version of the Windows OS to 150,000 beta testers. Thus, so long as 
MSFT restricts its beta testing program to 149,999 individuals until 
very late in the development process, it can effectively eviscerate 
the disclosure requirements. More troubling, it appears that 
Microsoft must have mislead the Department of Justice.
    Our review of the available documentation shows, for example, 
that Microsoft had no more than 20,000 beta testers4 for Windows XP 
(at least until very late in the release cycle); thus, had this 
provision been in place during the Windows XP release cycle, 
Microsoft would have been under no obligation to release APIs until 
just on the eve of product shipping.
    Note that the number of ``beta testers'' will be much 
smaller titan the number of ``beta copies'' of a product 
that is being prepared for release.
    Slow disclosure of APIs is precisely how MSFT defeated 
Netscape's timely interoperability with Windows 95. Thus, in this 
way, not only is the decree inadequate to prevent future wrongdoing, 
it does not even redress proven illegal acts in the past. U. Windows 
Operating System Product--The rule which gives away the rest of 
the settlement.
    The entire settlement can really be defined by its final clause, 
definition U. of the Windows Operating System Product. This 
provision gives Microsoft the right to define the Windows Operating 
System Product in the flowing way: ``The software code that 
comprises a Windows Operating System Product shall be determined by 
Microsoft in its sole discretion.'' This definition eviscerates 
most of the prior provisions of the PFJ (or at a minimum guarantees 
continued litigation of the meaning of the PFJ) will be rendered 
meaningless.
    More important, it gratuitously gives Microsoft a free reign to 
trample through the antitrust laws by continually redefining its 
monopoly product as it sees fit. It is hard to imaging how DoJ 
agreed to this provision.
    Appendix One: Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Flexibility for 
Windows. Microsoft Announces Greater OEM Flexibility for Windows 
Changes Will Not Affect Oct. 25 Launch Date of Windows XP REDMOND, 
Wash.--July 11, 2001--Microsoft Corp. announced Wednesday 
that it is offering computer manufacturers greater flexibility in 
configuring desktop versions of the Microsoft?? Windows?? operating 
system in light of the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia. The company said the changes would not 
affect the Oct. 25 launch date of Windows XP.
    ``We recognize that some provisions in our existing Windows 
licenses have been ruled improper by the court, so we are providing 
computer manufacturers with greater flexibility and we are doing 
this immediately so that computer manufacturers can take advantage 
of them in planning for the upcoming release of Windows XP,'' 
said Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft. ``Windows XP represents a 
revolutionary step forward in personal computing, and computer 
manufacturers and consumers are looking forward to this product with 
great anticipation.''
    ``This announcement does not take the place of settlement 
discussions with the government parties or any future steps in the 
legal process; however, we wanted to take immediate steps in light 
of the court's ruling. We are hopeful that we can work with the 
government parties on the issues that remain after the court's 
ruling,'' Bailmet added.
    The appeals court ruled that certain provisions in Microsoft's 
licenses with PC manufacturers impaired the distribution of third-
party Web browsers. Microsoft will now provide PC manufacturers with 
the following new flexibility:
    ï¿½ PC manufacturers will have the option to remove the 
Start menu entries and icons that provide end users with access to 
the Internet Explorer components of the operating system. Microsoft 
will include Internet Explorer in the Add/Remove programs feature in 
Windows XP.
    ï¿½ PC manufacturers will have the option to remove the 
Start menu entries and icons that provide end users with access to 
Internet Explorer from previous versions of Windows, including 
Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows He.
    ï¿½ PC manufacturers will retain the option of putting 
icons directly onto the Windows desktop. Based on extensive customer 
usability studies, Microsoft had designed Windows XP to ship with a 
clean desktop and improved Start menu, but PC manufacturers will now 
have the option of continuing to place icons on the Windows desktop 
if they want to.
    ï¿½ Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove 
Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the 
Internet Explorer components of the operating system. Microsoft has 
always made it easy for consumers to delete the icons for Internet 
Explorer, but will now offer consumers this additional option in 
Windows XP.
    Although some of these changes will require development work and 
testing for Windows XP, Microsoft said Wednesday it can complete the 
work and will be able to meet the date for worldwide launch on Oct. 
25.
    Computer industry leaders today underscored the importance of 
the launch of Windows XP to the PC industry and consumers. 
``We're very excited about the possibilities that Windows XP 
delivers to our customers,'' said Ted Waitt, co- founder and 
CEO of Gateway. ``With this new flexibility, we're looking 
forward to taking Windows XP to the next level, tailoring technology 
to meet our customers'' needs.''
    ``Windows XP is an incredible step forward for end users 
and partners, unlocking the possibilities of the digital 
world,'' said Jim Allchin, group vice president for platforms 
at Microsoft. ``Windows XP provides new opportunities for 
companies throughout the hardware and software industries, 
especially PC manufacturers that have worked closely with us to 
create the best experience for customers.'' ``We're 
excited about Windows XP and the positive impact it will have on our 
industry. As a strong partner for more than 15 years, Compaq has 
worked closely with Microsoft throughout the extensive development 
of Windows XP,'' said like Larson, senior vice president and 
general manager of the Access Business Group at Compaq. ``We 
are setting a new standard for simple, dependable and efficient 
computing.''
    ``Dell is excited about delivering Windows XP later this 
year,'' said Jim Totton, vice president of software for the 
Consumer Products Group at Dell. ``Dell is always interested in 
what's best for its customers, and the new levels of performance, 
ease of use and customization will combine for a great personal 
computing experience.''
    Windows XP will offer customers exciting new experiences for 
both home and work. Whether someone is an aspiring photographer or a 
businessperson on the road, Windows XP enables them to embrace the 
new digital world. It brings together the power and reliability that 
businesses have asked for with the ease of use and flexibility that 
home consumers want.
    Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq ``MSFT'') is the 
worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for 
personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of 
products and services designed to empower people through great 
software--any time, any place and on any device. Microsoft and 
Windows are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft 
Corp. in the United States end/or other countries.
    The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may 
be the trademarks of their respective owners. Note to editors: If 
you are interested in viewing additional information on Microsoft, 
please visit the Microsoft Web page at http://www.microsoft.com/
presspass/on Microsoft's corporate information pages.
    CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT WASTE NEW
    For Immediate Release
    Contact: Sean Rushton or Philippa Jeffery
    December 11, 2001 (202) 467-5300
    State AGs' Proposed Microsoft Case Remedies Are ``Wishful 
Thinking''
    Only eight presents for Hanukkah, and there is no Santa Claus.
    Washington, DC--Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 
today described the nine remaining state attorneys general in the 
Microsoft antitrust case as engaged in wishful thinking in their new 
proposed remedy package. The nine renegade states, California, 
Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, 
Minnesota,

[[Page 30240]]

Utah, and West Virginia are continuing the litigation against the 
software company despite a settlement reached by nine other states 
and the U.S. Department of Justice.
    ``Who are these public officials kidding?'' CAGW 
President Tom Schatz said. ``While the holidays are here, there 
is no one--besides these AGs--generous enough to give such 
a gift to Microsoft's competitors. The proposal is pure fantasy, 
going far beyond the district court remedy, which was substantially 
narrowed by a higher court.''
    ``Taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for the time and 
effort in this case, having already forked over more than $35 
million at the state and local level. The remaining nine states and 
the District of Columbia have an average of S 1.3 million in budget 
deficits. California alone is in the red by $9.5 billion, West 
Virginia is at $3 million, and Minnesota has ordered 10 percent 
budget cuts. Citizens are justifiably angered in these troubled 
times by the continued misuse of their tax dollars on this 
litigation,'' Schatz said.
    ``The details of the proposed remedy read like a 
competitor's dream come true. The nearly two-dozen provisions are 
three times as generous as the eight nights of Hanukkah,'' 
Schatz said. The states propose a 10-year remedy, twice as long as 
the one agreed to by the nine other states, DOJ, and Microsoft. 
During that time, every version of Windows would have to include 
Java, which is manufactured by Sun Microsystems. Microsoft's 
intellectual property would be available--essentially for 
free--to any competitor. A Special Master would have 
extraordinary powers to decide whether Microsoft is violating the 
agreement, and anyone can complain anonymously.
    ``Pursuit of this matter is particularly wasteful since the 
same judge that would approve the settlement between DOJ and 
Microsoft is presiding over the state litigation. If the AGs are 
really in the holiday spirit, they will stop misusing tax dollars on 
the Microsoft case and instead spend more time and effort protecting 
their citizens from terrorism,'' Schatz concluded.
    CAGW is the nation's largest taxpayer advocacy group with over 
one million members and supporters nationwide. It is a nonpartisan, 
nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, 
mismanagement and abuse in government.
    1301 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 
467-5300
    www.cagw.org
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT, CHAIRMAN
    EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASSACHUSETTS
    JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., DELAWARE
    HERBERT KOHL, WISCONSIN
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
    RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, WISCONSiN
    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NEW YORK
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, ILLINOIS
    MARIA CANTWELL. WASHINGTON
    JOHN EDWARDS, NORTH CAROLINA
    ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH
    STROM THURMOND, SOUTH CAROLINA
    CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA
    ARLEN SPECTER, PENNSYLVANIA
    JON KYL, ARIZONA
    MIKE DEWINE, OHIO
    JEFF SESSIONS, ALABAMA
    SAM BROWNBACK, KANSAS
    MITCH McCONNELL, KENTUCKY
    COMMlTTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
    WASHINGTON, DC 20510-62?5
    November 29, 2001
    The Honorable Charles A. James
    Assistant Attorney General
    Antitrust Division
    United States Department of Justice
    901 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530
    Re: United States v. Microsoft Co/p, Civil Action No. 
98-1232 (CKK)
    Dear Assistant Attorney General James:
    As you know, the Senate Judiciary Committee has a long-standing 
interest in the policy implications of the government's antitrust 
case in United States v. Microsoft. During my tenure as chairman, 
the Committee held a series of investigative hearings examining 
allegations of antitrust violations by Microsoft and the ability of 
existing law to address anti-competitive commercial conduct 
effectively and in a timely fashion. Many of the Committee's 
findings were later manifested in the decisions by the District 
Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
    The resolution of this case has significance not only for the 
parties to the litigation, but also for the future application and 
enforcement of our nation's antitrust laws in the software industry. 
Given the Committee's continued interest in these policy questions, 
it would be extremely helpful for me and other members of the 
Committee to have a better understanding of the various legal, 
regulatory and practical considerations relating to the proposed 
settlement.
    I have reviewed the Proposed Final Judgment (``PFJ'') 
submitted by the Department of Justice and several of the state 
plaintiffs, as well as the Competitive Impact Statement 
(``CIS'') filed by the Department on November 15, 2001. At 
the outset, I should note that the CIS provides information that 
further explains the implications of the proposed settlement and 
appears to satisfy your statutory obligation. Even so, I have a 
number of specific questions that I believe are critical to 
analyzing and understanding the PFJ. These questions are not 
intended to suggest a predisposition either in support of or in 
opposition to the settlement, and any interpretation otherwise would 
signal a misunderstanding of my interest in this matter. Rather, the 
questions are intended to elicit important information that I 
believe is necessary for forming an independent, objective, and 
informed analysis of the PFJ. Such objective analysis is essential 
in view of the importance of this case to Microsoft and its 
competitors, to innovation in the high-technology industry, to the 
economy, and to consumers.
    1. An earlier decision by the Court of Appeals, United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (DCCir. 1998) (``Microsoft 
II''), relating to the interpretation of an earlier consent 
decree with Microsoft, has been interpreted by some as expressing 
the view that judges should not be involved in software design, and 
that the government simply has no business telling Microsoft or any 
other company what it can include in any of its products. In its 
most recent decision, however, the Court of Appeals said that to the 
extent that the decision in Microsoft II completely disclaimed 
judicial capacity to evaluate high-tech product design, it cannot be 
said to conform to prevailing antitrust doctrine.
    See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001) 
(``Microsoft III''). Is the law clear that the Department 
does have a responsibility to assess the competitive implications of 
software design, in bringing antitrust enforcement actions? And, if 
so, does the Department have the necessary technical expertise and 
resources to perform such an evaluation?
    2. To foster competition in ``middleware'' the PFJ 
requires disclosure of APIs and similar information, but it then 
limits this provision only to those instances where disclosure would 
be for ``the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows 
Operating System Product.'' Except for the limitation, this 
provision is almost exactly like a comparable provision in Judge 
Jackson's interim consent decree. Why did the Department decide to 
add this limitation to the PFJ, and what effect will the inclusion 
of the limitation have on restoring competition? Please explain the 
competitive significance of web-based services, and whether the PFJ 
guarantees interoperability with the servers that operate those web-
based services?
    3. The Department has concluded that the PFJ is in the 
``public interest,'' as required by the Tunney Act. Are 
you aware of any other case where a Tunney Act ``public 
interest'' determination has occurred with respect to a 
settlement where the underlying liability on the merits already has 
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals? To what extent should the 
scope of the District Court's deference to the Antitrust Division 
under the Tunney Act be affected by a Court of Appeals' prior 
affirmance of Sherman Act liability?
    4. The Court of Appeals remanded the remedy issue because, among 
other reasons, the District Court failed to demonstrate how 
divestiture relief was designed to `` `unfetter 
[the] 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.' '' Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting 
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), United 
States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)). Please 
describe how the PFJ meets this standard dictated by the appellate 
court. (a) How does the PFJ ``terminate the monopoly'' 
Microsoft was found by the Appellate Court to have unlawfully 
maintained over PC operating system software? (b) How does the PFJ 
``deny to Microsoft the fruits of its Section 2 
violation?'' and (c) How does the PFJ ``ensure that there 
remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future?''
    5. Are there findings by the appellate court against Microsoft 
that are not addressed by the PFJ? If so, what were the reasons why 
the Department chose not to address these findings?
    6. The Court of Appeals held that it was illegal for Microsoft 
to bind products together

[[Page 30241]]

with Windows by ``commingling code'' because this practice 
helped Microsoft unlawfully maintain its desktop operating system 
monopoly. The Court concluded that code commingling has an 
``anticompetitive effect'' by deterring OEMs from pre-
installing rival software, ``thereby reducing the rivals' usage 
share and, hence, developers' interest in rivals' APIs as an 
alternative to the API set exposed by Microsoft's operating 
system.'' Microsoft III, 153 F.3d at 66. How does the PFJ 
prevent Microsoft from future unlawful commingling of non-Windows 
code with Windows?
    7. You have said that Microsoft ``won the right to sell 
integrated products,'' and that ``the tying claim was 
eliminated by the appeals court.'' (Business Week, November 19, 
2001, p. 116). Other observers, however, argue that the Court of 
Appeals simply vacated the per se findings of a tying law violation 
and remanded that issue for consideration under a ``rule of 
reason'' standard? Why did the Department conclude that the 
tying claim was ``eliminated'' and not simply remanded to 
be retried under a different standard? What are the circumstances, 
if any, under which the court or the Department could find it 
impermissible for Microsoft to ``integrate'' a product 
with its Windows operating system?
    8. The CIS acknowledges that the ``users rarely switched 
from whatever browsing software was placed most readily at their 
disposal.'' It has been suggested that the most effective way 
to restore competition and to prevent future misconduct would be to 
require Microsoft to sell a product that is simply an operating 
system without all of the various applications that are now 
incorporated into Windows. Without such a requirement, the argument 
goes, consumers would be forced to procure two products if they 
choose to use a non-Microsoft version of a product that has been 
included in the operating system--Microsoft's version and the 
competitor's version. If Microsoft middleware is preinstalled with 
Windows, how do you think the adoption rate by users of non-
Microsoft middleware will be affected? Did the Department consider 
including in the PFJ a requirement that Microsoft sell a version of 
Windows that is solely an operating system without other 
applications bundled with it?
    9. Some observers claim the Court of Appeals found that 
Microsoft's technological tying, particularly its ``commingling 
of code,'' was an illegal act of monopolization under Section 2 
of the Sherman Act, but that there was insufficient evidence to 
determine that the same conduct violated Section 1. Do you agree 
with this? Does the PFJ provide a remedy for such misconduct? In 
your analysis, does the failure to find that the conduct violated 
Section 1 obviate the need to provide a remedy for the violation the 
court found under Section 2?
    10. Some Wall Street analysts have opined that the PFJ imposes 
no obligation on Microsoft to change its business practices or 
redesign its products. Instead, these analysts have concluded, the 
PFJ seeks to restore competition by permitting OEMs to add products 
to Microsoft's desktop. Is this view of the PFJ accurate? Is it the 
Department's position that OEMs are in the best economic position to 
restore competition in personal computing? If so, what is the basis 
for that position? Are there other entities that might be in a 
position to help restore competition?
    11. A significant portion of the Microsoft III opinion was 
devoted to Microsoft's conduct vis-a-vis Java technology. The Court 
found Microsoft unlawfully used distribution agreements to forestall 
competition with middleware manufacturers. See, e.g., Microsoft III, 
253 F.3d at 74-78. The court found these agreements to be 
anticompetitive because they ``foreclosed a substantial portion 
of the field for.., distribution and because, in so doing, they 
protected Microsoft's monopoly from a middleware threat.'' Id. 
at 76. Does the PFJ addresses such practices?
    12. The Supreme Court has said that in an antitrust remedy, 
``it is not necessary that all of the untraveled roads to that 
[unlawful] end be left open and that only the worn one be 
closed.'' International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 
392, 401 (1947). The Court also has made clear that injunctive 
relief which simply ``forbid[s] a repetition of the illegal 
conduct'' is not sufficient under Section 2, because defendants 
``could retain the full dividends of their monopolistic 
practices and profit from the unlawful restraints of trade which 
they had inflicted on competitors.'' Schine Chain Theatres, 
Inc. v. United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948). Are the standards 
enunciated by the Court in International Salt and Schine Chain 
Theatres applicable in the Microsoft case? If so, would you identify 
provisions in the PFJ that satisfy these standards?
    13. The Supreme Court also has held that a Section 2 
monopolization remedy ``must break up or render impotent the 
monopoly power found to be in violation of the Act.'' United 
States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563,577 (1966). Does the PFJ 
``render impotent'' Microsoft's Windows monopoly and, if 
so, how?
    14. There has been considerable discussion about Microsoft's 
Windows XP product, with some critics arguing that Microsoft is 
repeating the same technical binding, bundling and monopoly 
maintenance tactics found by the court to be unlawful when used in 
the past against Microsoft's competitors. If true, this allegation 
would be significant, given the appellate court's instruction 
``that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future,'' Microsoft III, 253 F.3d at 103 
(quoting United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 
(1968)). Some critics have also charged that Microsoft's broad .NET 
strategy is an effort to build upon the fruits of Microsoft's past 
unlawful conduct and remake the Internet as a Microsoft-proprietary 
Internet. Does the PFJ apply to Windows XP or to Microsoft's .NET 
strategy? If not, why has the Department decided not to apply the 
settlement to these products? Can competition in the operating 
system be restored without addressing these products?
    15. Many of the provisions of the PFJ appear to assume that OEMs 
will act to aggregate operating system software and assume the role 
of desktop design and software packaging in the PC distribution 
chain. According to many observers, however, there simply is no 
financial incentive for OEMs to do anything but accept the full 
Microsoft software package. What is the Department's position on 
this issue? Was any consideration given to reports that OEMs did not 
take advantage of an offer by Microsoft this past summer to replace 
icons in the Windows XP desktop?
    16. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft's conduct with 
respect to Java, in which the Court found it to engage in a 
``campaign to deceive [Java] developers'' and 
``polluted'' the Java standard in order to defeat 
competition to its operating system monopoly violated Section 2 of 
the Sherman Act. The Court held ``Microsoft's conduct related 
to its Java developer tools served to protect its monopoly of the 
operating system in a manner not attributable either to the 
superiority of the operating system or to the acumen of its makers, 
and therefore was anticompetitive. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers 
no procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive 
developers. Accordingly, we conclude this conduct is exclusionary, 
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.'' Microsoft III, 
slip op. p. 101. As you know, the lower court decree included a 
provision designed to prevent deliberate sabotaging of competing 
products by Microsoft. Does the PFJ restrict Microsoft's ability to 
modify, alter, or refuse to support computer industry standards, 
including Java, or to engage in campaigns to deceive developers of 
competitor platform, middleware or applications software?
    17. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated Section 2 
of the Sherman Act by entering into an exclusive contract with Apple 
that required Apple to install Internet Explorer as the Macintosh 
browser. Microsoft III, 252 F3d at 72-74. Many observers 
accuse Microsoft of having forced Apple to enter into the contract 
by threatening to withhold the porting of Microsoft Office to the 
Macintosh operating system. Does the PFJ prohibit Microsoft from 
threatening to withhold development of Microsoft Office with respect 
to other platforms, such as handheld devices, set-top boxes, and 
phones? If no, why did the Department choose not to address this 
concern in the PFJ?
    18. You have been quoted as saying that various software and 
computer services companies are in the process of purchasing space 
on the desktop from Microsoft. (Business Week, November 19, 2001, p. 
116). In the Department's view, is the space on the desktop on 
computers manufactured by the OEMs owned by Microsoft or should that 
space be the property of the computer manufacturers?
    19. The CIS suggests the Department has embraced the goal of 
encouraging competitive development of``middleware'' in 
order that such middleware can become the type of platform software 
that could challenge the operating system monopoly. The settlement 
requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to remove consumer 
``access'' to the company's ``middleware.'' It 
has been observed, however, that since the code for Microsoft's 
``middleware'' is commingled with Windows, OEMs are only 
allowed to

[[Page 30242]]

remove the icon for a middleware application. The CIS seems to 
acknowledge that Microsoft understood that software developers would 
only write to the APIs exposed by Navigator in numbers large enough 
to threaten the applications barrier to entry if they believe that 
Navigator would emerge as the standard software employed to browse 
the web. Can you explain why you believe third-party application 
developers would write applications to non-Microsoft APIs if the 
Microsoft middleware APIs as well as the Windows APIs will be 
present on over 95% of the personal computers sold?
    20. Concerns have been raised about the consequences of several 
``provisos'' that have been included in the PFJ. For 
example, Section III.H.3 prohibits Microsoft from denying consumers 
the choice of using competing applications, but a proviso to this 
language states that Microsoft can challenge a consumer's decision 
to choose an application other than its own after 14 days and 
encourage the consumer to switch back to the Microsoft product. What 
does the Department believe will be the impact of the messages that 
Microsoft will be able to send to consumers on their own computers? 
Are other companies permitted to send comparable messages to 
consumers who choose to utilize Microsoft products? Finally, why did 
the Department choose a period of 14 days as opposed to some other 
period of time?
    21. Under Sections III.H and VI.N a competing middleware 
application receives protection under the PFJ, but this protection 
applies only if the competitor ships at least one million units over 
the course of a year. Why did the Department choose that particular 
number?
    22. Did the Department give consideration to the argument that 
small innovators, who may be in the initial stages of product 
development and sales, might be in need of greater protection than a 
company capable of selling more than one million units?
    23. Section 111.B of the PFJ prohibits Microsoft from engaging 
in discriminatory pricing of its desktop operating system with OEMs. 
Does the PFJ also prohibit use of this same kind of discriminatory 
pricing against server operating systems and other non-Windows 
software?
    24. The interim decree proposed by Judge Jackson included a 
provision precluding Microsoft from taking knowing action to disable 
or adversely affect the operation of competing middleware software. 
Does the PFJ contain a comparable provision? If not, what was the 
Department's rationale for not including this prohibition in the 
proposed settlement?
    25. Why did the Department choose not to present evidence to the 
District Court on current PC operating system market developments, 
including changes in the Internet browser market share since the 
trial began? Did the Department undertake an investigation of 
current market developments to determine the impact of the PFJ on 
the existing market realities? For example, was there an analysis of 
the impact of the proposed settlement on Microsoft's proposed future 
products and services?
    26. The CIS suggests that the District Court's role under the 
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act is limited to reviewing the 
remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has 
alleged in its complaint. See CIS at p. 67. Yet the authorities 
cited for that proposition appear to be cases that were settled 
before trial. Some observers argue that in this case the District 
Court should review the settlement in relationship to the Court of 
Appeals ruling rather than to the violations alleged in the original 
complaint. Does the Department agree with that assessment?
    27. Has the Department undertaken any studies to determine the 
effectiveness of its prior consent decree with Microsoft in 
restoring competition? How do you believe prior obstacles to 
enforcement of consent decrees with Microsoft are addressed in the 
PFJ?
    28. Do you believe that current antitrust law is sufficient to 
guarantee not only competition but timely enforcement in areas such 
as the software industry?
    29. What steps, if any, should be taken, legislatively or 
otherwise, to ensure that the Department has the proper economic and 
technological resources to enforce the law in the software industry?
    I appreciate your cooperation with this request. As I hope you 
agree, a better understanding of the Department's objectives and the 
scope of the remedy measures included in--as well as excluded 
from--the PFJ will serve the long-term interest we share in 
proper application of the antitrust laws to the emerging information 
economy.
    I look forward to your response and to the opportunity to 
address these issues with you, Microsoft and other interested 
parties in the coming weeks.
    Orrin G. Hatch
    Ranking Republican Member
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, DC 20530
December 11, 2001
Honorable Orrin Hatch
United State Senate
Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Senator Hatch:
    This is in response to our letter of November 29, requesting 
responses to questions regarding U.S.v. Microsoft.
    As you know, the Department has stipulated to entry of a 
proposed Final Judgment resolving all remaining claims in the case, 
and that settlement is undergoing Tunney Act review before the 
District Court. The Department believes the proposed Final Judgment 
is in the public interest and will be entered by the Court at the 
conclusion of the Tunney Act process.
    Nevertheless, the Department must be mindful of the Court's 
prerogatives and the possibility, however remote, of future 
litigation regarding the merits of the case or the settlement 
itself. Accordingly, given the pendency of the case, the Department 
is constrained in the amount of detail it can offer in these 
responses. It would be inappropriate, for example, for the 
Department to specie, legal positions it must take with regard to 
potentially contested issues or to speculate about future 
enforcement positions the Department might take with regard to 
current or future conduct by specific firms. As a Senator who has 
been a strong supporter of effective antitrust enforcement, I am 
sure that you appreciate the reasons for such constraint.
    At the outset, and prior to responding to your specific 
questions, please allow me to offer two general perspectives that 
provide context for the Department's responses.
    First, U.S.v. Microsoft is and always has been a law enforcement 
initiative. It involves specific allegations investigated by the 
Department and litigated in the courts. The boundaries of the case 
are determined by the allegations of the Department's complaint and 
the manner in which those allegations have been resolved by the 
courts--in particular, the Court of Appeals. Within the context 
of this specific case, the Department has no legal mandate to act 
outside of these boundaries.
    Second, there is a wide gulf between permissible relief under 
the antitrust laws and the manner in which Microsoft's competitors 
would prefer to see Microsoft constrained in future competition. As 
I know you appreciate, our goal as antitrust enforcers is to ensure 
that Microsoft competes fairly within the confines of the antitrust 
laws for the benefit of consumers, not to obtain specific 
competitive advantages for the benefit of Microsoft's competitors. 
With these perspectives in mind, and subject to the foregoing 
caveats, the Department is pleased to provide the following 
responses.

QUESTION

    1. An earlier decision by the Court of Appeals, United States v. 
Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (DCCir. 1998) (``Microsoft 
II''), relating to the interpretation of an earlier consent 
decree with Microsoft, has been interpreted by some as expressing 
the view that judges should not be involved in software design, and 
that the government simply has no business telling Microsoft or any 
other company what it can include in any of its products. In its 
most recent decision, however, the Court of Appeals said that to the 
extent that the decision in Microsoft//completely disclaimed 
judicial capacity to evaluate high-tech product design, it cannot be 
said to conform to prevailing antitrust doctrine. See United States 
v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (DC Cir. 2001) (``Microsoft 
III''). Is the law clear that the Department does have a 
responsibility to assess the competitive implications of software 
design, in bringing antitrust enforcement actions? And, if so, does 
the Department have the necessary technical expertise and resources 
to perform such an evaluation?

ANSWER

    In exercising its responsibility to enforce the antitrust laws, 
the Department routinely confronts complex issues, including 
economic and technical issues regarding software design. The 
Department has both the resources and capability to address such 
issues, as they affect enforcement matters, through internal means 
and, where appropriate, the retention of outside experts.

QUESTION

    2. To foster competition in ``middleware'' the PFJ 
requires disclosure of APIs and

[[Page 30243]]

similar information, but it then limits this provision only to those 
instances where disclosure would be for ``the sole purpose of 
interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product.'' 
Except for the limitation, this provision is almost exactly like a 
comparable provision in Judge Jackson's interim consent decree. Why 
did the Department decide to add this limitation to the PFJ, and 
what effect will the inclusion of the limitation have on restoring 
competition? Please explain the competitive significance of web-
based services, and whether the PFJ guarantees interoperability with 
the servers that operate those web-based services?

ANSWER

    The insertion of``for the sole purpose of interoperating 
with a Windows Operating System Product'' in Section III.D. of 
the proposed Final Judgment simply clarifies that the APIs must be 
used for the purpose intended under the settlement (and as intended 
in Judge Jackson's order)- ensuring that developers of competing 
middleware products will have full access to the same information 
that Microsoft middleware uses to interoperate with the Windows 
operating system. That is, the disclosure is not intended to permit 
misappropriation of Microsoft's intellectual property for other 
uses. The insertion of this clause will not change the provision's 
ability to restore competition in any way. The concept of``web-
based'' services is constantly evolving as companies find new 
ways to use the Internet. The ultimate competitive significance of 
such services remains to be determined.
    The Department's case addressed the topic of web-based services 
only with respect to the middleware threat to the operating system. 
Section III.E. of the proposed Final Judgment ensures that software 
developers will have full access to, and be able to use, the 
communication protocols necessary for server operating system 
software located on a server computer to interoperate with the 
functionality embedded in the Windows operating system.

QUESTION

    3. The Department has concluded that the PFJ is in the 
``public interest,'' as required by the Tunney Act. Are 
you aware of any other case where a Tunney Act ``public 
interest'' determination has occurred with respect to a 
settlement where the underlying liability on the merits already has 
been affirmed by the Court of Appeals? To what extent should the 
scope of the District Court's deference to the Antitrust Division 
under the Tunney Act be affected by a Court of Appeals'' prior 
affirmance of Sherman Act liability'?

ANSWER

    The Department is not aware of a case where a court has made a 
Tunney Act ``public interest'' determination with respect 
to a settlement where the underlying liability on the merits already 
had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Beyond the Department's 
position set forth in its submissions to the Court, it would be 
inappropriate for the Department to comment on the appropriate scope 
of the Court's discretion because the Court's review of the proposed 
Final Judgment is pending under the Tunney Act.

QUESTION

    4. The Court of Appeals remanded the remedy issue because, among 
other reasons, the District Court failed to demonstrate how 
divestiture relief was designed to ``unfetter [the] 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'' Microsoft IlL 253 F.3d 
at 103 (quoting Ford Motor Co. V. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 
(1972), United States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244,250 
(1968)). Please describe how the PFJ meets this standard dictated by 
the appellate court. (a) How does the PFJ ``terminate the 
monopoly'' Microsoft was found by the Appellate Court to have 
unlawfully maintained over PC operating system software? (b) How 
does the PFJ ``deny to Microsoft the fruits of its Section 2 
violation?'' and (c) How does the PFJ ``ensure that there 
remain no practices likely to result in monopolization in the 
future?''

ANSWER

    In the two cases quoted above, the monopoly in question was 
obtained by unlawful means. It was never alleged in this case, 
however, that Microsoft unlawfully obtained its operating system 
monopoly. Further, as the Court of Appeals noted, ``the 
District Court expressly did not adopt the position that Microsoft 
would have lost its position in the OS market but for its 
anticompetitive behavior.'' U.S.v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 107 
(DC Cir. 2001). The Court of Appeals also went on to hold that: 
``[s]tructural relief, which is'' designed to eliminate 
the monopoly altogether ... require[s] a clear indication of a 
significant causal connection between the conduct and creation or 
maintenance of the market power.'' Absent such causation, the 
antitrust defendant's unlawful behavior should be remedied by 
``an injunction against continuation of that conduct.'' 
Id. at 106 (quoting 3 AREEDA & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUSTLAW 
[653b, at 91-92, and paragraph 650a, at 67).
    The injunctive relief in this case, with no allegation Microsoft 
unlawfully obtained its operating system monopoly, is designed to 
stop the unlawful conduct, prevent its recurrence and restore lost 
competition in the market. See Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 103 (quoting 
Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972) and United 
States v. United Shoe Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)).
    The proposed Final Judgment stops the offending conduct by 
enjoining the unlawful actions that the District Court and the Court 
of Appeals sustained. The proposed Final Judgment enjoins exclusive 
and unlawful dealing, gives computer manufacturers and consumers 
extensive control of the desktop and initial boot sequence, ensures 
that developers can develop products that interoperate with the 
Windows operating system, and prohibits a broad range of retaliatory 
conduct. The proposed Final Judgment prevents the recurrence of the 
conduct identified as unlawful by addressing the broad range of 
potential strategies Microsoft might deploy to impede the emergence 
of competing middleware products. The proposed Final Judgment also 
seeks to restore lost competition posed by the potential middleware 
threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly by requiring 
Microsoft to, among other things: (i) disclose APIs that will give 
independent software developers the opportunity to match Microsoft's 
middleware functionality.;
    (ii) allow computer manufacturers and users to replace Microsoft 
middleware with independently developed middleware; and (iii) create 
and preserve ``default'' settings that will ensure that 
Microsoft's middleware does not over-ride the selection of third-
party middleware products.

QUESTION

    5. Are there findings by the appellate court against Microsoft 
that are not addressed by the PFJ? If so, what were the reasons why 
the Department chose not to address these findings?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment addresses each of the Court of 
Appeals'' findings, and even goes beyond them.

QUESTION

    6. The Court of Appeals held that it was illegal for Microsoft 
to bind products together with Windows by ``commingling 
code'' because this practice helped Microsoft unlawfully 
maintain its desktop operating system monopoly. The Court concluded 
that code commingling has an ``anticompetitive effect'' by 
deterring OEMs from pre-installing rival software, ``thereby 
reducing the rivals'' usage share and, hence, developers'' 
interest in rivals'' APIs as an alternative to the API set 
exposed by Microsoft's operating system.'' Microsoft Ill, 153 
F.3d at 66. How does the PFJ prevent Microsoft from future unlawful 
commingling of non-Windows code with Windows?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment addresses these issues by requiring 
Microsoft to redesign its operating %'stem to include an effective 
add/remove function for all Microsoft middleware products and to 
permit competing middleware to take on a default status that 
,,','ill override middleware functions Microsoft has integrated into 
the operating system. The proposed Final Judgment does not contain 
an absolute prohibition on Microsoft commingling code within 
Windows, and the Department does not interpret the Court of Appeals 
decision as requiring such relief.

QUESTION

    7. You have said that Microsoft ``won the right to sell 
integrated products,'' and that ``the tying claim was 
eliminated by the appeals court.'' (Business Week, November 19, 
2001, p. 116). Other observers, however, argue that the Court of 
Appeals simply vacated the per se findings of a tying law violation 
and remanded that issue for consideration under a ``rule of 
reason'' standard? Why did the Department conclude that the 
tying claim was ``eliminated'' and

[[Page 30244]]

not simply remanded to be retried under a different standard? What 
are the circumstances, if any, under which the court or the 
Department could find it impermissible for Microsoft to 
``integrate'' a product with its Windows operating system?

ANSWER

    The Court of Appeals reversed the per se tying claim and 
remanded it to the lower court for adjudication under a more 
rigorous legal standard. The Court also held that if the Department 
pursued the tying claim on remand it would be precluded from arguing 
any theory of harm relying on a precise definition of browsers or 
barriers to entry, even though the government would have the burden 
of showing an anticompetitive effect in the browser market. The 
Court of Appeals also invited an extensive and complex analysis of 
pricing, noting that other operating system manufacturers included 
Web browsers in their operating systems, and requiring the 
plaintiffs to show that any anticompetitive effects outweighed the 
procompetitive effects. In light of the Court's decision and the 
desire to achieve prompt relief for consumers without protracted 
litigation and appeals, the Department and the state plaintiffs 
decided not to pursue the tying claim. Given the continuing pendency 
of this litigation and the possibility that these issues may arise 
in other contexts, it is not appropriate for the Department to 
speculate under what circumstances Microsoft's conduct would be 
impermissible.

QUESTION

    8. The CIS acknowledges that the ``users rarely switched 
from whatever browsing software was placed most readily at their 
disposal.'' It has been suggested that the most effective way 
to restore competition and to prevent future misconduct would be to 
require Microsoft to sell a product that is simply an operating 
system without all of the various applications that are now 
incorporated into Windows. Without such a requirement, the argument 
goes, consumers would be forced to procure two products if they 
choose to use a non-Microsoft version of a product that has been 
included in the operating system--Microsoft's version and the 
competitor's version. If Microsoft middleware is preinstalled with 
Windows, how do you think the adoption rate by users of non-
Microsoft middleware will be affected? Did the Department consider 
including in the PFJ a requirement that Microsoft sell a version of 
Windows that is solely an operating system without other 
applications bundled with it?

ANSWER

    The Department did consider, and ultimately, reject a remedy 
that would have required Microsoft to sell a version of its 
operating system that did not contain some or all of the 
applications that it typically includes with the Windows operating 
system. First, this relief would have been most appropriate to 
remedy the tying and attempted monopolization liability (which were 
not sustained by the Court of Appeals), rather than for monopoly 
maintenance. Second, the remedy would reduce consumer choice rather 
than increase it. The proposed Final Judgment provides computer 
manufacturers the option of featuring, and end users the option of 
selecting, alternative middleware products, which they may choose to 
use or replace. Even if Microsoft middleware is preinstalled on the 
computer, computer manufacturers will have the ability to remove 
access to it and replace it with independently developed middleware. 
In this way, competition for consumer patronage of middleware 
products, unfettered by artificial restrictions by Microsoft, will 
determine adoption rates.

QUESTION

    9. Some observers claim the Court of Appeals found that 
Microsoft's technological tying, particularly its ``commingling 
of code,'' was an illegal act of monopolization under Section 2 
of the Sherman Act, but that there was insufficient evidence to 
determine that the same conduct violated Section 1. Do you agree 
with this? Does the PFJ provide a remedy for such misconduct? In 
your analysis, does the failure to find that the conduct violated 
Section 1 obviate the need to provide a remedy for the violation the 
court found under Section 2?

ANSWER

    The Court of Appeals observed some overlap between the tying 
claim and the code integration issues under the monopoly maintenance 
claim. However, as the Court of Appeals noted, the District Court 
concluded that tying and commingling are two different things 
--''[a]lthough the District Court also found that 
Microsoft commingled the operating system-only and browser-only 
routines in the same library files, it did not include this as a 
basis for tying liability despite plaintiffs'' request that it 
do so.'' U.S.v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 85 (DC Cir. 2001). The 
Department believes that the proposed Final Judgment effectively 
addresses the integration issues of the monopoly maintenance claim 
by requiting Microsoft to redesign its operating system to include 
an effective add/remove function for all Microsoft middleware 
products and to permit competing middleware to be featured in its 
place, as well as take on a default status that will, if the 
consumer chooses, override middleware functions Microsoft has 
integrated into the operating system.

QUESTION

    10. Some Wall Street analysts have opined that the PFJ imposes 
no obligation on Microsoft 1o change its business practices or 
redesign its products. Instead, these analysts have concluded, the 
PFJ seeks to restore competition by permitting OEMs to add products 
to Microsoft's desk-top. Is this view of the PFJ accurate? Is it the 
Department's position that OEMs are in the best economic position to 
restore competition in personal computing? If so, what is the basis 
for that position? Are there other entities that might be in a 
position to help restore competition?

ANSWER

    The Department fundamentally disagrees with this 
characterization of the proposed Final Judgment.
    The proposed Final Judgment will require Microsoft to 
fundamentally change the way in which it deals with computer 
manufacturers, Internet access providers, software developers and 
others within the computer industry with regard to the manner in 
which it designs, sells, and shares information regarding its 
operating system. The proposed Final Judgment does not reflect a 
position by the Department that computer manufacturers are the only 
distribution outlet for software or that they are the only ones in a 
position to help restore competition. In fact, consumers 
increasingly obtain software in various distribution channels apart 
from computer manufacturers.
    Rather, certain provisions in the proposed Final Judgment focus 
on computer manufacturers because the restrictions on computer 
manufacturers to distribute software was a primary focus of the case 
and the Court of Appeals concluded that computer manufacturers were 
a critical distribution channel for Windows, as well as for 
middleware and other software applications.

QUESTION

    11. A significant portion of the Microsoft III opinion was 
devoted to Microsoft's conduct vis-a-vis Java technology. The Court 
found Microsoft unlawfully used distribution agreements to forestall 
competition with middleware manufacturers. See, e.g., Microsoft III, 
253 F.3d at 74-78. The court found these agreements to be 
anticompetitive because the), ``foreclosed a substantial 
portion of the field for.., distribution and because, in so doing, 
they protected Microsoft's monopoly from a middleware threat'' 
Id. at 76. Does the PFJ addressees such practices?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment addresses such conduct by 
prohibiting Microsoft from entering into agreements that require 
software developers and other industry participants to exclusively 
distribute, promote, use or support a Microsoft middleware or 
operating system product, and by prohibiting Microsoft from 
retaliating against software developers who support competing 
middleware products.

QUESTION

    12. The Supreme Court has said that in an antitrust remedy, 
``it is not necessary that all of the untraveled roads to that 
[unlawful] end be left open and that only the worn one be 
closed.'' International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 
392,401 (1947). The Court also has made clear that injunctive relief 
which simply ``forbid[s] a repetition of the illegal conduct is 
not sufficient under Section 2, because defendants ``could 
retain the full dividends of their monopolistic practices and profit 
from the unlawful restraints of trade which the3'' had 
inflicted on competitors.'' Schine Chain Theatres. Inc. v. 
United States, 334 U.S. 110, 128 (1948). Are the standards 
enunciated by the Court in International Salt and Schine Chain 
Theatres applicable in the Microsoft case? If so, would you identify 
provisions in the PFJ that satisfy these standards?

ANSWER

    The obligations imposed on Microsoft in the proposed Final 
Judgment go considerably beyond merely stopping, and preventing the

[[Page 30245]]

recurrence of, the specific acts found unlawful by the Court of 
Appeals. Specifically, the proposed Final Judgment goes further by: 
(i) applying a broad definition of middleware products, which goes 
well beyond the Web browser and Java technologies that were the 
focus of the Department's case, to include all of the technologies 
that have the potential to be middleware threats to Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly, including e-mail clients, media players, 
instant messaging software and future middleware developments;
    (ii) requiting the disclosure or licensing of middleware 
interfaces and server communications protocols not previously 
disclosed to ensure that non-Microsoft middleware and server 
software can interoperate with Microsoft's operating system; (iii) 
ensuring that computer manufacturers and consumers have extensive 
control of the desktop and initial boot sequence; (iv) broadly 
banning certain exclusive dealing, retaliation and discrimination by 
Microsoft beyond the practices affirmed as anticompetitive by the 
Court of Appeals; (v) requiting Microsoft to license its operating 
system to key computer manufacturers on uniform terms; (vi) 
requiting Microsoft to license intellectual property to computer 
manufacturers and software developers necessary for them to exercise 
their tights under the proposed settlement; and (vii) implementing a 
panel of three independent, on-site, full-time experts to assist in 
enforcing the proposed Final Judgment.

QUESTION

    13. The Supreme Court also has held that a Section 2 
monopolization remedy ``must break up or render impotent the 
monopoly power found to be in violation of the Act.'' United 
States v. Grinnelll Corp., 384 U.S. 563,577 (1966). Does the PFJ 
``render impotent'' Microsoft's Windows monopoly and, if 
so, how?

ANSWER

    In the case against Microsoft there has never been any 
contention that Microsoft obtained its operating system monopoly 
through unlawful means. Instead, the allegation sustained by the 
Court of Appeals was that Microsoft engaged in specific unlawful 
acts, not a course of conduct, to maintain its monopoly in violation 
of Section 2. Because relief in a Section 2 case must have its 
foundation in the offending conduct, the Department's view was that 
the monopoly maintenance finding, as modified by the Court of 
Appeals, and without the ``course-of-conduct'' 
theor3'', did not sustain a broad-ranging remedy, such as a 
``break up'' of Microsoft's operating system monopoly, 
that went beyond what was necessary to address Microsoft's unlawful 
responses to the middleware threat. Thus, the proposed Final 
Judgment does not seek such break-up relief.

QUESTION

    14. There has been considerable discussion about Microsoft's 
Windows XP product, with some critics arguing that Microsoft is 
repeating the same technical binding, bundling and monopoly 
maintenance tactics found by the court to be unlawful when used in 
the past against Microsoft's competitors. If true, this allegation 
would be significant, given the appellate court's instruction 
``that there remain no practices likely to result in 
monopolization in the future,'' Microsoft I!I, 253 F.3d at 103 
(quoting United States v. United Shore Mach. Corp., 391 U.S. 244,250 
(1968)). Some critics have also charged that Microsoft's broad .NET 
strategy is an effort to build upon the fruits of Microsoft's past 
unlawful conduct and remake the Internet as a Microsoft-proprietary 
Internet. Does the PFJ apply to Windows XP or to Microsoft's NET 
strategy? If not, why has the Department decided not to apply the 
settlement to these products? Can competition in the operating 
system be restored without addressing these products?

ANSWER

    With the monopoly maintenance claim as the only surviving basis 
for relief, the proposed Final Judgment must focus on middleware or 
middleware-type threats to the operating system, not 
Microsoft'' s participation in other markets in a way unrelated 
to the conduct by Microsoft found unlawful by the Court of Appeals. 
The proposed Final Judgment expressly applies to Windows XP and any 
successors during the term of the judgment (see definition of 
Wirrdows Operating System Product). It also applies to a wide 
variety of current and future Microsoft middleware products. What 
has been labeled .NET is a relatively new, diverse initiative by 
Microsoft in the market. As parts of.NET come more fully to 
fruition, they will be evaluated under the proposed Final Judgment, 
as would any other software. For instance, parts of the .NET 
strategy are likely to be middleware, such as instant messaging 
clients. To the extent .NET software or conduct implicates the 
anticompetitive acts raised in the case, it would be addressed under 
the proposed Final Judgment or otherwise by the Department.

QUESTION

    15. Many of the provisions of the PFJ appear to assume that OEMs 
will act to aggregate operating system software and assume the role 
of desktop design and software packaging in the PC distribution 
chain. According to many observers, however, there simply is no 
financial incentive for OEMs to do anything but accept the full 
Microsoft software package. What is the Department's position on 
this issue? Was any consideration given to reports that OEMs did not 
take advantage of an offer by Microsoft this past summer to replace 
icons in the Windows XP desktop?

ANSWER

    During the trial, the Department showed, and the Court of 
Appeals found, that computer manufacturers are a key distribution 
channel for Windows, as well as for middleware and other software 
applications. Further, even before the proposed Final Judgment was 
executed, computer manufacturers were entering into agreements with 
non-Microsoft middleware suppliers to place their products on the 
Windows operating system. With the implementation of the proposed 
Final Judgment, which provides computer manufacturers with greater 
freedom with respect to replacing Microsoft middleware products, 
computer manufacturers should have even greater incentives to do so. 
The powers extend well beyond the limited rights Microsoft afforded 
when Windows XP was introduced this past summer. The true test will 
occur as the uncertainty surrounding the case is removed by the 
proposed Final Judgment, when the proposed Final Judgment's anti-
retaliation and anti-discrimination terms are in place, and when new 
middleware products emerge on the market.

QUESTION

    16. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Microsoft's conduct with 
respect to Java, in which the Court found it to engage in a 
``campaign to deceive [Java] developers'' and 
``polluted'' the Java standard in order to defeat 
competition to its operating system monopoly violated Section 2 of 
the Sherman Act. The Court held ``Microsoft's conduct related 
to its Java developer tools served to protect its monopoly of the 
operating system in a manner not attributable either to the 
superiority of the operating system or to the acumen of its makers, 
and therefore was anticompetitive. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers 
no procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive 
developers. Accordingly, we conclude this Conduct is exclusionary, 
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.'' Microsoft III, 
Slip Op. p. 101. As you ``know, the lower court decree included 
a provision designed to prevent deliberate sabotaging of competing 
products by Microsoft. Does the PFJ restrict Microsoft's ability to 
modify, alter, or refuse to support computer industry standards, 
including Java, or to engage in campaigns to deceive developers of 
competitor platform, middleware or applications software?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment does not expressly restrict 
Microsoft's ability to modify, alter, or refuse to support computer 
industry standards, or engage in campaigns to deceive software 
developers. The Department chose not to include the referenced 
provision because the term originally included in Judge Jackson's 
order allowed Microsoft to take steps to change its operating system 
that would interfere with third-party's middleware to interoperate 
as long as Microsoft informed the third part5, of the change and 
what, if anything, could be done to fix the problem. This would 
have, in effect, given Microsoft a license to interfere with 
competing middleware as long as it simply notified the competing 
developer. In addition, this provision would have been difficult for 
the Department to enforce in this case because of the constant 
changes Microsoft makes to its operating system, which while 
potentially procompetitive, may have the unintentional consequence 
of affecting a competing product's interoperability. Therefore, 
implementing this provision would have resulted in unnecessary 
compliance disputes. The proposed Final Judgment hinders 
Microsoft'' s ability to disadvantage competing middleware 
developers by making the means

[[Page 30246]]

by which middleware products interoperate with the operating system 
more transparent. The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to 
now disclose those APIs that its middleware products use to 
interoperate with the operating system. Disclosure of these APIs 
will make it harder for Microsoft to interfere with competing 
middleware. Further, to the extent computer industry standards are 
implemented in communications protocols, as often occurs, Microsoft 
must license those protocols in accordance with Section III.E., 
including any modifications or alterations to the industry standard 
protocols. When the industry standard is implemented between a 
Microsoft middleware product, such as its Java Virtual Machine, and 
the operating system, Microsoft must disclose that interface.

QUESTION

    17. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated Section 2 
of the Sherman Act by entering into an exclusive contract with Apple 
that required Apple to install Internet Explorer as the Macintosh 
browser. Microsoft Ill, 252 F.3d at 72-74. Many observers 
accuse Microsoft of having forced Apple to enter into the contract 
by threatening to withhold the porting of Microsoft Office to the 
Macintosh operating system. Does the PFJ prohibit Microsoft from 
threatening to withhold development of Microsoft Office with respect 
to other platforms, such as handheld devices, set-top boxes, and 
phones? If no, why did the Department choose not to address this 
concern in the PFJ?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment would prohibit Microsoft from 
threatening to withhold the development of Microsoft Office for 
other platforms, such as handheld devices, set-top boxes and phones, 
if it did so because the software or hardware developer was 
developing, using, distributing, promoting or supporting ant'' 
software that competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating 
system products (or any software that runs on any software that 
competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating system products), 
or because the developer exercises any of the options or 
alternatives provided for under the proposed Final Judgment.

QUESTION

    18. You have been quoted as saying that various software and 
computer services companies are in the process of purchasing space 
on the desktop from Microsoft. (Business Week, November 19, 2001, p. 
116). In the Department's view, is the space on the desktop on 
computers manufactured by the OEMs owned by Microsoft or should that 
space be the property of the computer manufacturers?

ANSWER

    Whether the space on the desktop is owned by Microsoft or is the 
property of the computer manufacturers does not impact the 
effectiveness of the proposed Final Judgment in remedying the 
anticompetitive conduct by Microsoft. The Department does not have a 
view as to whether the space on the desktop should be viewed as the 
property of Microsoft or the computer manufacturers. The Department 
does have the view that Microsoft middleware and competing 
middleware should compete for the space, and the proposed Final 
Judgment ensures that this competition occurs.

QUESTION

    19. The CIS suggests the Department has embraced the goal of 
encouraging competitive development of ``middleware'' in 
order that such middleware can become the type of platform software 
that could challenge the operating system monopoly. The settlement 
requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to remove consumer 
``access'' to the company's ``middleware.'' It 
has been observed, however, that since the code for Microsoft's 
``middleware'' is commingled with Windows, OEMs are only 
allowed to remove the icon for a middleware application. The CIS 
seems to acknowledge that Microsoft understood that software 
developers would only write to the APIs exposed by Navigator in 
numbers large enough to threaten the applications barrier to entry 
if they believe that Navigator would emerge as the standard software 
employed to browse the web. Can you explain why you believe third-
party application developers would write applications to non-
Microsoft APIs if the Microsoft middleware APIs as well as the 
Windows APIs will be present on over 95% of the personal computers 
sold?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment will require Microsoft to do more 
than simply allow for the removal of its middleware icons. It 
requires that Microsoft allow end users and computer manufacturers 
to remove other means of access to, and override automatic 
invocations of, Microsoft middleware products and replace them with 
independently developed middleware products. Therefore, regardless 
of whether some portion of the Microsoft middleware code remains, 
end users and computer manufacturers can remove access to such 
middleware and replace it with alternative middleware. As the trial 
demonstrated, actual usage of a middleware product by the consumer, 
and not simply the presence of the product's code on the computer, 
has competitive significance. The marketplace, however, will 
determine whether any particular middleware product becomes 
sufficiently ubiquitous. This will ensure that competing middleware 
products will have the opportunity to compete for placement on the 
personal computer and that consumers will have a choice.

QUESTION

    20. Concerns have been raised about the consequences of several 
``provisos'' that have been included in the PFJ. For 
example, Section III.H.3 prohibits Microsoft from denying consumers 
the choice of using competing applications, but a proviso to this 
language states that Microsoft can challenge a consumer's decision 
to choose an application other than its own after 14 days and 
encourage the consumer to switch back to the Microsoft product. What 
does the Department believe will be the impact of the messages that 
Microsoft will be able to send to consumers on their own computers? 
Are other companies permitted to send comparable messages to 
consumers who choose to utilize Microsoft products? Finally, why did 
the Department choose a period of 14 days as opposed to some other 
period of time?

ANSWER

    It is incorrect that the proposed Final Judgment allows 
Microsoft to ``challenge'' a consumer's decision to select 
a non-Microsoft middleware product. Some end users prefer to have 
icons readily available on the desktop; others prefer a ``clean 
desktop.'' In Windows XP, Microsoft has a Clean Desktop Wizard, 
which asks a user whether he or she would like to have unused icons 
(whether for Microsoft products or other products) taken off the 
desktop and placed in a folder, where they can still be easily 
accessed. The proposed Final Judgment allows Microsoft to continue 
providing this cleanup function, which the user can choose to take 
advantage of or not. The impact will be that end users can exercise 
choice. The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to wait 14 
days before it seeks confirmation from the end user because this 
will ensure that end users have a meaningful opportunity to 
determine which products, if any, the, want to keep on the desktop.

QUESTION

    21. Under Sections III.H and VI.N, a competing middleware 
application receives protection under the PFJ, but this protection 
applies only if the competitor ships at least one million units over 
the course of a year. Why did the Department choose that particular 
number? Did the Department give consideration to the argument that 
small innovators, who may be in the initial stages of product 
development and sales, might be in need of greater protection than a 
company capable of selling more than one million units?

ANSWER

    The one million copies figure is implicated only in the 
operative provision contained in Section III.H. of the proposed 
Final Judgment and only to a very limited extent in Section III.D. 
Section III.H. requires Microsoft to include in Windows an effective 
add/remove function to allow end users and computer manufacturers to 
enable or remove access to Microsoft and non-Microsoft middleware 
products, and to permit non-Microsoft middleware products to take on 
a default status that will override middleware functions Microsoft 
has integrated into the operating system. Distribution of only one 
million copies, rather than sales, installation or usage, is a 
relatively minor threshold in the software industry today, and 
including this limited qualification in Section III.H. will ensure 
that Microsoft's affirmative obligations under these provisions will 
not be triggered by minor, or even nonexistent, products that have 
not established a competitive potential in the market and that might 
even be unknown to Microsoft development personnel.
    The one million copies figure applies in even a more limited 
fashion to Section III.D. That section requires Microsoft to 
disclose to

[[Page 30247]]

software and hardware developers, computer manufacturers and others 
in the industry certain APIs and other technical information that 
Microsoft's middleware products use to interoperate with the Windows 
operating system. The one million copy, limitation applies only to 
disclosures of interfaces for future middleware that has not yet 
been developed or even conceived. The Department considered the 
competitive impact of smaller innovators. In fact, the proposed 
Final Judgment provides protection for nascent middleware products 
by prohibiting Microsoft from retaliating or discriminating against 
them, regardless of the number of copies that they distribute.
    22. [The letter skips this question.]

QUESTION

    23. Section III.B of the PFJ prohibits Microsoft from engaging 
in discriminator3'' pricing of its desktop operating system 
with OEMs. Does the PFJ also prohibit use of this same kind of 
discriminatory pricing against server operating systems and other 
non-Windows software?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment does not require Microsoft to use 
uniform terms and conditions when licensing its server operating 
system or other non-Windows software.

QUESTION

    24. The interim decree proposed by Judge Jackson included a 
provision precluding Microsoft from taking knowing action to disable 
or adversely affect the operation of competing middleware software. 
Does the PFJ contain a comparable provision? If not, what was the 
Department's rationale for not including this prohibition in the 
proposed settlement?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment does not contain an express 
provision precluding Microsoft from taking knowing action to disable 
or adversely affect the operation of competing middleware products. 
As explained more fully in response to question 16. the Department 
chose not to include this type of provision because it would have 
given Microsoft a license to interfere with competing middleware as 
long as it simply notified the competing developer. In addition, it 
would have been difficult for the Department to enforce the 
provision because of the constant changes Microsoft makes to its 
operating system. Many of these changes would have been known by 
Microsoft to have the unintended consequence of affecting a 
competing product's interoperability. Instead, the proposed Final 
Judgment contains provisions that require Microsoft to provide 
competing middleware with APIs needed to interoperate with the 
Windows operating system.

QUESTION

    25. Why did the Department choose not to present evidence to the 
District Court on current PC operating system market developments, 
including changes in the Internet browser market share since the 
trial began? Did the Department undertake an investigation of 
current market developments to determine the impact of the PFJ on 
the existing market realities? For example, was there an analysis of 
the impact of the proposed settlement on Microsoft's proposed future 
products and services?

ANSWER

    Judge Kollar-Kotelly had scheduled an evidentiary heating on 
remedy to take place in 2002. The Department would have had the 
opportunity to present evidence to the Court at that time. There was 
no opportunity to present evidence to the Court at an earlier date. 
The Department conducted an ongoing evaluation of market 
developments and the impact of the proposed Final Judgment on 
existing market realities. One result of this evaluation was to 
broaden the definition of middleware to include new potential 
threats to the operating system, including email clients, media 
players, instant messaging software and future middleware 
developments. The Department also analyzed the impact of the Court 
of Appeals'' decision and the proposed Final Judgment on 
Microsoft's future products and services.

QUESTION

    26. The CIS suggests that the District Court's role under the 
Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act is limited to reviewing the 
remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has 
alleged in its complaint. See CIS at p. 67. Yet the authorities 
cited for that proposition appear to be cases that were settled 
before trial. Some observers argue that in this case the District 
Court should review the settlement in relationship to the Court of 
Appeals ruling rather than to the violations alleged in the original 
complaint. Does the Department agree with that assessment?

ANSWER

    Beyond the Department's position set forth in its submissions to 
the Court, the Department cannot comment on the appropriate review 
by the Court because the Court's review of the proposed Final 
Judgment is pending under the Tunney Act.

QUESTION

    27. Has the Department undertaken any studies to determine the 
effectiveness of its prior consent decree with Microsoft in 
restoring competition? How do you believe prior obstacles to 
enforcement of consent decrees with Microsoft are addressed in the 
PFJ?

ANSWER

    The Department has not conducted a formal study on the 
effectiveness of the prior consent decree with Microsoft. In its 
ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed Final 
Judgment, however, the Department did consider the prior consent 
decree with Microsoft. There has been no determination by a court of 
obstacles to enforcement of consent decrees with Microsoft. 
Moreover, the proposed Final Judgment in this case contains some of 
the most stringent enforcement provisions contained in a modern 
consent decree. In addition to the ordinary prosecutorial access 
powers, the proposed Final Judgment requires an independent, full-
time, on-site technical compliance team and a provision under which 
the term of the judgment may be extended by up to two years in the 
event the Court finds serious, systemic violations.

QUESTION

    28. Do you believe that current antitrust law is sufficient to 
guarantee not only competition but timely enforcement in areas such 
as the software industry?

ANSWER

    The Department believes that the current antitrust. laws are 
sufficient to guarantee not only competition, but timely enforcement 
in high-tech areas, such as the software industry.

QUESTION

    29. What steps, if any, should be taken, legislatively or 
otherwise, to ensure that the Department has the proper economic and 
technological resources to enforce the law in the software industry?

ANSWER

    The Department does not believe that any changes to the 
antitrust laws are needed to ensure that the Department has the 
proper economic and technological resources to enforce the law in 
the software industry or other high-tech areas. The Department 
should continue to have the adequate resources to enforce the laws 
as long as appropriately funded by the Congress. Please do not 
hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance on this or an), 
other matter.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel J. Bryant
    Assistant Attorney General
1150 SEVENTEEMTH STREET. N. W.
WASHINGTON. D. C 20036
December 11, 2001
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
    The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch Committee on the Judiciary United 
States Senate Washing-ton, DC 20510
    Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch:
    The Proposed Final Judgment (PFJ) in U.S v. Microsoft is a 
woefully inadequate end to more than 11 years of investigation and 
litigation against Microsoft Corporation. There is no longer a 
debate over Microsoft's liability under the antitrust laws. 
Microsoft has been found liable before the District Court. Microsoft 
lost its appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit sitting en banc in a 7-0 
decision. Microsoft's petition for a rehearing before the Court of 
Appeals was refused. Microsoft's petition for certiorari before the 
Supreme Court was also denied. The courts have decided that 
Microsoft possesses monopoly power and has used that power 
unlawfully to protect its monopoly.
    The case now turns back to the District Court for review under 
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act--the so-called 
Tunney Act. Under the Tunney Act the Court must reach an independent 
judgment on whether or not the settlement is in the ``public 
interest.'' The District Court finds itself in an interesting 
posture in that in the 30 years since the Tunney Act was enacted, it 
has never been applied in a case which has been litigated and 
affirmed. What is unique

[[Page 30248]]

about the application of the Tunney Act in U.S. v. Microsoft is that 
rather than some ambiguous ``public interest'' standard, 
the District Court will now be obligated to reach a decision on 
whether or not the settlement corresponds to the clear guidance of 
the Court of Appeals.
    The court of appeals set out a simple standard for measuring the 
legal sufficiency of any remedy selected in the Microsoft 
litigation: the remedy must ``seek to `unfetter [the] 
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.''' United 
States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 103 (DC Cir. 
2001)(``Microsoft III'') (quoting Ford Motor Co. v. United 
States, 405 U.S. 562, 577 (1972), and United States v. United Shoe 
Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244, 250 (1968)). The Court of Appeals was 
very deliberate in its handling of this case, and its finely crafted 
opinion manifestly chose its words and precedents with care. In 
citing the Ford Autolite and United Shoe cases, the DC Circuit 
underscored the clear guidance of the Supreme Court in 
monopolization cases. The DC Circuit provided equally 
straightforward guidance in explaining Microsoft's liability for 
illegal monopolization. At the core of the case was Microsoft's 
successful campaign to eliminate the dual threats of Netscape's 
Navigator web browser and the Java programming language. Both 
Navigator and Java were ``platform threats'' to 
Microsoft's underlying operating system. Both Navigator and Java 
served as ``middleware.'' ``Middleware'' means 
that these programs exposed applications programming interfaces 
(APIs) so that third party applications developers could write 
applications to Navigator and Java in lieu of the underlying Windows 
operating system. And because both Navigator and Java ran on 
operating systems other than Windows they fundamentally threatened 
the Windows operating system, Microsoft's core source of monopoly 
power. The DC Circuit could not have been clearer on these points. 
See Microsoft HI, 253 F.3d at 53-56. 60. At a minimum any 
proposed settlement must effectively remedy this problem.
    Unfortunately, the remedy accepted by the Antitrust Division of 
the Justice Department ignores most of the key findings by both the 
Court of Appeals and the District Court. The PFJ falls far short of 
the standards for relief clearly articulated by the Court of Appeals 
and the United States Supreme Court. The PFJ includes provisions 
that potentially make the competitive landscape of the software 
industry worse. And, the PFJ contains so many ambiguities and 
loopholes as to make it unenforceable, and likely to guarantee years 
of additional litigation.
    That the PFJ will hamper Microsoft's illegal behavior not at all 
is shown by the reactions of the investment community:
    ``We have review the Settlement Agreement between MSFT and 
the DoJ ... the states (and to a lesser degree the DoJ) had talked 
tough and set expectations for a knock- out victory, and now must 
accept criticism that they walked away with too little concessions 
from Microsoft.'' Goldman Sachs, 11/2/01
    ``As we have stated before, we believe a settlement is a 
best case scenario for Microsoft. And, this settlement in particular 
seems like a win for Microsoft being that it would preserve 
Microsoft's ability to bundle its Internet assets with Windows XP 
and ``2 future operating systems--a plus for the company. 
In fact, it appears that Internet assets such as Passport are 
untouched. Also, as is typical with legal judgments, this settlement 
is backward looking, not forward looking. In other words, it looks 
at processes in the past, but not potential development of the 
future.'' Morgan Stanley, 11/02/01
    ``The deal ... appears to be more, better, and 
faster'' than we expected in a settlement deal between 
Microsoft and DoJ. The deal will apparently require few if any 
changes in Windows XP and leave important aspects of Microsoft's 
market power intact.'' Prudential Financial, 11/01/01
    ``With a dramatic win last week, Microsoft appears to be on 
its way to putting the U.S. antitrust case behind it. The PFJ 
between the Department of Justice and Microsoft gives little for 
Microsoft's competitors to cheer about .... There is very little 
chance that competitors could prove or win effective relief from 
violation of this agreement, in our view.'' Schwab Capital 
Markets, 11/6/01
    This takes on particular importance given the state of the 
software market. Since the end of the trial before the District 
Court the market has changed substantially: Microsoft's monopolies 
are stronger in each of its core markets with both the Windows 
operating system and the Office suite now higher than 92 percent and 
95 percent, respectively;
    Microsoft has achieved a new monopoly in web browsers;
    Competitive forces that may have existed in the past--most 
notably the Linux operating system--now clearly pose no threat 
to Microsoft's monopoly; and Microsoft has made clear it intends to 
further protect and extend its monopoly through a series of 
initiatives including, Hailstorm (web-services); Windows XP, and 
.NET.
    Some policy makers have adopted the view that settling this case 
could somehow revive the slowing U.S. economy. This is an absurd 
proposition. The problem with the PC sector today is that demand has 
slowed and prices for PC hardware have plummeted (as opposed to 
Microsoft's software which has effectively increased in price). It 
is simply incorrect to equate slowing PC demand with Microsoft's 
legal problems. Also, we are unaware of any economic theory that 
suggests that monopolies maintained by predatory conduct--as 
opposed to competition and innovation--can spur economic 
growth. As the Precursor Group recently pointed out: ``investor 
lament about the lack of broadband and the absence of killer 
applications is the other side of the coin'' to investor glee 
with the market power and profits of incumbent Bell, Cable; and 
Microsoft monopolies ... having legal monopolies on the major access 
points to the Internet is unlikely to maximize innovation and growth 
that investors are counting on.''
    The briefing memorandum offered in support of these views 
documents general problems with the PFJ and specific section-by-
section analysis of the PFJ's provisions. However, this memorandum 
is meant to be illustrative--not comprehensive--to give 
policy makers a preview of the issues to be examined under the 
Tunney Act. The Antitrust Division and Microsoft will continue to 
insist that the PFJ sufficiently remedies the issues in the case.
    Yet these arguments simply cannot be squared with the fact that 
every independent investment analyst and industry analyst has 
concluded that this remedy will have n----9o material 
impact on Microsoft's business.
    Policy makers also need to pay attention to the precedent this 
case establishes. In settling the most important antitrust case in 
decades through a remedy that will have not impact on the current or 
future competitive landscape, and absolutely no deterrent effect on 
the defendant, the Department of Justice has effectively repealed a 
major segment of the nation's antitrust laws. Moreover, any 
potential witness with knowledge of anticompetitive conduct in a 
monopolized market has to weigh the potential benefit of his or her 
testimony against the likely response of the defendant monopolist. 
The DOJ's proposed meaningless remedy would insure that no witness 
would ever testify against Microsoft in any future enforcement 
action.
    The PFJ, in short, places this defendant in a position of 
effectively being above the antitrust laws, and does so by 
surrendering the government's victory in the District Court and the 
unanimous seven-member Court of Appeals. That is a result that 
should not be countenance&
    Yours truly,
    Robert H. Bork
    RHB:lh
THE BARKSDALE GROUP
December 11, 2001
Jamer L. Barksdalo
[email protected]
(650) 234 5252
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
SD-224
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Ranking Minority, Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
SD-224
Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch,
    I was privileged to have received the invitation to testify at 
your bearing on Wednesday, December 12, and had looked forward to 
offering my views about the likely effect of the proposed Microsoft 
settlement, particularly on the state of innovation in the high-
technology industries.
    At the time I was asked to testify, it was suggested my 
testimony might be useful to the committee because of my experience 
as the CEO of Netscape, and especially because Netscape was founded 
at a time when Microsoft was first charged with Sherman Act 
violations. Those of us at Netscape competed with Microsoft at a 
time when Microsoft was theoretically constrained by a

[[Page 30249]]

1995 Consent Decree, and thus I would be in a position to attest to 
Microsoft's business conduct during a period in which 
anticompetitive actions would theoretically be restrained.
    Moreover, my testimony would have been free of any fear of 
Microsoft. I am no longer in a business that competes with them. I 
can afford to tell the truth, and the'' truth needs to be told.
    It is an established legal fact that Microsoft has retaliated 
against firms like Netscape, Intel, Apple, Real Networks, IBM, 
Compaq and a host of others which have 2730 Sand Hill Road Suite 
100. Menlo Purk, CA 94025 (650) 234 5200 main (650) 234 5201 fax
    These developments have stiffened my resolve to do all that I 
can to insure that competition and consumer choice are reintroduced 
to the industry. It is vitally important that no company can do to a 
future Netscape what Microsoft did to Netscape from 1995 to 1999. It 
is universally recognized that that the 1995 Consent Decree was 
ineffective. I respectfully submit that the Proposed Final Judgment 
(``PFJ''), which is the subject of the hearing, will be 
even less effective, if possible, than the 1995 Decree ha restoring 
competition and stopping anticompetitive behavior.
    Accordingly, Senator Leahy, I am going to follow your suggestion 
that I help the committee answer one of the central questions:
    If the PFJ had been in effect off along, how would it have 
affected Netscape? More important, how will it affect future 
Neiscapes? Impact on future Netscapes.
    As discussed in the attached document, the unambiguous 
conclusion is that if the PFJ agreed upon last moath by Microsoft 
and the Department of Justice had been in existence in 199a; 
Netscape would have never been able to obtain the necessary venture 
capital financing. In fact, the company would not have come into 
being in the first place, The work of Marc Andreesen's team at the 
University of Illinois in developing the Mosaic browser would likely 
have remained an academic exercise.
    An innovative, independent browser company simply could not 
survive under the PFJ. And such would be the effect on any company 
developing in the future technologies as innovative as the browser 
was in the mid 1990s.
    That leaves the question of whether Microsoft itself would have 
developed browser technology necessary far Internet navigation. My 
belief is that .Microsoft would not have developed that technology, 
It is abundantly clear that Microsoft viewed the browser and the 
Internal itself as the principal threat to their care business of 
selling operating systems and applications for desktop computers.
    This PFJ allows Microsoft to employ the full fury, of its 
multiple monopolies against anyone who would develop a browser or 
any other technology that might have the potential to challenge any 
aspects of Microsoft's business. I have reviewed the PFJ, and my 
impression continues to be that it is a document whose principal 
purpose is to protect Microsoft from competition,-and not to open up 
the market to competition with Microsoft. I note, again with 
pleasure, that the .remedy proposal by the state Attorneys General 
who remain as plaintiffs would significantly open the market up to 
competition.
    deigned to compete with parts of Microsoft's business. The 
courts ha-,'e repeatedly and unanimously found that this atmosphere 
has led to the stifling of innovation throughout the high-technology 
sector, harming consumers and the economy. Perhaps worse, Microsoft 
has created an atmosphere where those who witness violations of the 
law are afraid to share what they know with law enforcement 
officials. The certainty of retaliation against these potential 
witnesses has had, to varying degrees, the effect of obstructing 
justice. One of the points I would have made had I been able to 
testify, is that the settlement between Microsoft 2 and the 
Department of Justice would do virtually nothing to protect Computer 
manufacturers and others from Microsoft's retaliation. Which means 
that, fundamentally, Microsoft's behavior will not be changed by it. 
The settlement is simply that--a memorial to the end, not a 
remedy for the past or for the future.
    Over the last five years, the Committee has pushed soak-are 
companies to step forward and make public their concerns about 
Microsoft's illegal conduct, to identify how the company's 
anticompetitve behavior was eliminating competition, discouraging 
investment and stifling innovation. Witnesses were told--and ! 
was one of them--that policymakers understood that antitrust 
law enforcement was critical to insuring competition in the software 
industry. Witnesses were told that cooperation with the government 
not only made good business sense; k was their public duty, and 
necessary to insure the illegal conduct was appropriately remedied.
    Not surprisingly, many were reluctant, fearful of what would 
happen to their businesses and their employees. Many that came 
forward paid a heavy price. Retaliation was meted out in a variety, 
of ways. Meanwhile, the company that broke the taw has only grown 
stronger. The Committee may wish to consider how'' this result 
might impact the administration of justice, as well as any potential 
future testimony in both the legislative and judicial branches of 
government.
    During the Cold War, we used to refer to a concept known as 
Finlandization. What this referred to was that Finland was nominally 
free of the Soviet Union, but was so threatened by it, it could not 
act unilaterally without tempering its actions so as not to offend 
its giant neighbor which could crash it at will. The technology 
industry now, and at or the settlement with DOJ, is still 
effectively, Finlandized by Microsoft. It is still dominated, and 
will still cower in fear of the monopolist unbound. The resolution 
of the antitrust litigation will to a large degree determine whether 
or when that atmosphere changes. That may well be a larger issue 
than the specifics of any proposed settlement. I note with some real 
satisfaction that the remedy outlined last Friday by the nine state 
Attorneys General who remain as plaintiffs would have the effect of 
genuinely constraining Microsor2, and thus liberating the technology 
industry from the shadow cast by Microsoft.
    If the PFJ provisions are allowed to go into effect, it is 
unrealistic to think that anybody would ever secure venture capita 
financing to compete against Microsoft. This would be a tragedy for 
our nation. It makes a mockery of the notion that the PFJ is 
``good for the economy.''
    If the PFJ goes into effect, it will subject an entire industry, 
to dominance by an unconstrained monopolist, thus snuffing out 
competition, consume:'' choice and innovation in perhaps our 
nation's most important: industry. And worse, it will allow them to 
extend their dominance to more traditional businesses such as 
financial services, entertainment, telecommunications, and perhaps 
many others.
    Four years ago I appeared before the committee and was able to 
demonstrate, with the help of the audience, that Microsoft 
undoubtedly had a monopoly. Now it has been proven in the courts 
that Microsoft not only has a monopoly, but they have illegally 
maintained that monopoly through a series of abusive and predatory 
actions. I submit to the committee that Microsoft is infinitely 
stronger in each of their core businesses San they were four years 
ago, despite the faro that their principal arguments have been 
repudiated 8-0 by the federal courts. I hope you will keep 
these thoughts in mind during your hearings. A more detailed 
analysis of my views follows.
    JLB/s
    Attachment
    Sincerely yours:
    Jams L. Barksdale

Background on Netscape and the Internet browser.

    Many of you know that Netscape was founded by Dr. Jim Clark and 
Marc Andreesen. Marc had been a participant in National Science 
Foundation programs in the early 90s at the University of Illinois, 
where he and his team in 1993 wrote the code that became the first 
easy to use browser. Even though the Internet and its ancestors had 
been around since the 1960's, the graphical browser- which allowed 
non-computer scientists to navigate the Internet--was the 
technological innovation we had been waiting for. This led to the 
creation of Netscape in 1994. This triggered an explosion eu 
innovation, and changed all of our lives. I am proud to have served 
as Netscape's CEO from 1995-1999, when it was acquired by AOL, 
and very proud of the role Netscape had in changing the world for 
the better.

A. API Disclosure.

    The browser was and is a third party application. But it as also 
a potential platform which exposed Application Programming 
Interfaces (''.APIs'') and supported other third party, 
applications. Third party applications writers desired to write 
applications to the browser platform, because once these 
applications worked with the browser, they would automatically run 
on any operating system on which the browser was present, It is well 
documented that Microsoft was concerned this phenomenon would 
commoditize

[[Page 30250]]

Windows--meaning that this would bring about real competition 
in the operating system market, Introducing competition to a 
monopolized market would have been exactly the kind of positive 
development our competition policies welcome.
    Of course, the browser could not work without an operating 
system. We needed Microsoft's cooperation and we needed the Windows 
APIs necessary to insure Netscape's browser interoperated with 
Windows.
    It was well known that Windows ``95 would be a major 
product release for Microsoft. We contacted Microsot5 in the spring 
of 1995 about obtaining the necessary APIs, the same APIs they were 
distributing to other 3rd party applications writers. Because 
Microsoft viewed Netscape as a potential competitor, they withheld 
the necessary APIs from Netscape for an extended period of 
time--almost a year.
    Question I. Would the PFJ have compelled the disclosure of the 
APIs necessary for Netscape's browser to interoperate with Windows?
    Answer: A resounding no. The PFJ would not have compelled 
meaningful disclosure in a timely way.
    It is advertised that the PFJ ``requires'' Microsoft 
to disclose to third party software developers the APIs for Windows. 
A review of the definitions reveals that the provision is 
essentially meaningless. APIs for new versions of the Windows 
operating systems .must be disclosed .in a ``timely 
manner.'' ``Timely manner'' is triggered when 
Microsot5 distributes beta. copies of its software to 150,000 
``beta tenors.'' It is highly doubtful Microsoft ever 
distributed beta copies of its software to 150,000 ``beta 
testers''. More important, this provision allows Microsoft to 
unilaterally decide act to reach the timely manner definition in the 
first place, which insures they can avoid disclosure by simply 
keeping the number of beta testers remains below 150,000.
    The other disclosure requirements in the PFJ seem to call for 
the kind of disclosure made to members of the Microsot5 Developers 
Network. The problem of withholding necessary APIs only presents 
itself when. the entity requesting the APIs is a partial competitor 
to Microsoft. Under the PFI, Microsoft's ability to arbitrarily 
withhold APIs from those that would deign to enter into competition 
with Microsoft is left intact. Moreover, provision J of the Proposed 
Final Judgment allows Microsot2 to withhold technical information if 
it might ``compromise the security'' of authentication or 
encryption systems. This provision would clearly implicate 
information disclosed relevant to browser technology, since a 
browser, by definition, encapsulates encryption software. The 
Committee needs to understand that products either interoperate or 
they don't. In order to interoperate effectively, third parties must 
have all of the information, not some subset defined by Microsoft.
    For example, in 1995, there was a debate between Microsoft and 
Netscape about whose authentication and encryption software was 
boxer. Netscape had developed and implemented SSL, and Microsoft had 
implemented SMTP. Microsoft would have never distributed APIs at a 
critical time in Netscape's development because they card have 
claimed, if the PFJ had been in effect, those APIs would undermine 
SMTP. Lastly, the PFJ fails to define the critical term 
``interoperability.'' The PFJ leaves the term to be 
defined by Microsoft.
    The sum of the API provision will ensure that Microsoft will 
continue to determine the flow of information to third party 
developers. And any dispute- which may be favorably resolved by the 
so-called ``Technical Committee,'' will never be conducted 
inn timely manner.

B. Killing Browser Competition by Commingling Browser Code With Windows 
and Calling it all ``Windows''.

    Netscape distributed the first commercially successful browser. 
Microsoft decided to distribute their browsers without charge. As 
the litigation demonstrated, Microsoft decided by 1997 to bolt the 
browser together with Windows because, as their testimony indicated, 
they were losing the battle. Attachment
    Litigation ensued. Microsoft denied that it had violated the law 
in so doing, citing the language of the 1995 Consent Decree. 
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals held in June, 1998, that under the 
terms of the 1995 Consent Decree, Microsoft was entitled to bind 
products together as long as there was a ``facially 
plausible'' explanation for having done so. The Court pointedly 
said at the time that this issue might have been decided differently 
if it were a Sherman Act case rather than a Consent Decree case. 
Nevertheless, Microsoft seized upon this Consent Decree opinion and 
claimed that it could now bundle a ham sandwich as part of Windows 
if they wanted.
    Let me make one point clear: while I believe this was the wrong 
result, I do not blame Microsoft for attempting to prevail on this 
point-- The fault 1/es with the Department of Justice for 
having written a poor agreement with Microsoft in the first place. 
The agreement was flawed in that it contained language which was at 
best ambiguous and, at worst, an avenue for Microsoft to flaunt the 
decree.
    The Sherman Act antitrust case against Microsoft was flied in 
May, t998.'' The government alleged that Microsoft's practice 
of Wing the browser and operating system together was illegal. In 
June, 2001, the Court of Appeals this time said that Mascot's pro, 
ice of ``commingling'' the browser and operating system 
code together was illegal,
    Question 2. How does the PFJ deal with the issue of binding 
other software to Windows?
    Answer. Remarkably, the PFJ adepts Microsoft's ham sandwich 
armament. It contains a definition w kick says that Windows is 
whatever Microsoft says it is. The net effect of this is whenever 
any software is developed which could threaten Microsoft, Microsoft 
can simply bolt a similar product into Windows and call it all one 
product. Since this language is more favorable to Microsoft than 
current law, it is an example of how Microsoft, the defendant in the 
lawsuit, actually g ;a/ned affirmative exceptions from current law 
through negotiations with the Department of Justice.
    Once again, I don't blame .Microsoft for trying. They're 
supposed to negotiate the best deal possible. It is the fault of the 
Justice Department and the various states who agreed to this.
    The PFJ not only would not have .protected Netscape from 
Microsoft's predatory conduct. It actually would have provided less 
protection than any of the legal standards that have existed the 
past ten years.

C. Distribution and Retaliation.

    The most important distribution channel in the software business 
is the OEM channel. Microsoft controls that channel by virtue of 
having the Windows monopoly. If Microsoft chooses not to distribute 
Windows to a particular OEM in a timely manner, the OEM simply 
cannot sell computers,
    The OEM channel became the most important distribution channel 
for Netscape as well. Microsoft used its market power to impede 
Netscape's ability to distribute Attachment browsers. They said they 
were going to ``choke off (our) air supply'' and they 
began to execute on that strategy. OEMs who Wanted to feature 
Netscape's browser were punished by Microsoft. The price of Windows 
was increased, or the threat of canceling the Windows license was 
made.
    Question 3. How does the PFJ protect against retaliation by 
Microsoft against an OEM or anybody else who would prefer to feature 
or sell non-Microsoft software? Answer: The first thing that must be 
taken into account is that there is nothing in this remedy which 
will lead to more competition in the operating system .market, so 
OEMs know that Microsoft's position is more secure as a monopolist 
than ever before. That fact, juxtaposed with the permanent 
cancellation threat Microsoft gained by this settlement, is intended 
to and will freeze any OEM wishing to promote non-Microsoft 
alternatives. Under dais agreement, Microsoft can terminate, without 
notice, a PC companies Windows license, after sending the PC company 
two notices that it believes it is violating its license. There need 
not be any adjudication or determination by any independent tribunal 
that Microsoft's claims are correct; only :we notices to any PC 
company of a putative violation, and thereafter, Microsoft may 
terminate without even giving notice.
    This provision means that the PC companies are, at any time, 
just two registered letters away from an unannounced economic 
calamity. It will render the PC companies severely limited in their 
willingness to promote products that compete with Microsoft Even 
though Microsoft is an adjudged monopolist, it is constrained only 
from certain . specified forms of retaliation, presumably empowering 
it to engage in other forms of retaliation. This formulation is 
particularly problematic because the protected PC company activities 
are narrowly and specifically defined. Retaliation against a PC 
company for installing a non-Microsoft application that does not 
meet the middleware definition is NOT prohibited; nor is retaliation 
against a PC company for removing a MSFT application that does not 
meet the middleware definition.

[[Page 30251]]

    Microsoft cart price Windows at a high price, and then put 
economic pressure on the PC company to use only Microsoft 
applications through the provision that Microsoft can provide 
unlimited consideration to PC companies for distributing or 
promoting Microsoft's services or products. The limitation that 
these payments must be ``commensurate with the absolute level 
or amount of'' PC company expenditures is hollow, since there 
is no cost methodology proposed, and no mechanism to account for 
costs in any event.
    Under the settlement, Microsoft can provide unlimited 
``market development allowances, programs, or other discounts 
in connection with Windows Operating System Products.'' This 
provision essentially eviscerates the entire scheme of PC company 
choice, functioning the same way as the rebate provision discussed 
above, but without any tether or limiting principle whatsoever. 
Simply put, MSFT can charge. $150 per copy of Windows, but then 
provide a $99 ``market development allowance'' for PC 
companies that install Windows Media Player as opposed to Real 
Networks media player.
    Presumably, this is intend to be prescribed by a provision which 
says that ``discounts or their award'' shall not be 
``based on or impose any criterion or requirement that is 
otherwise inconsistent with ... this Final Judgment,'' but this 
circular and self-referential provision does not ensure that the 
practice identified above is prohibited And Microsoft is free to 
retaliate against PC companies that promote competition by 
withholding any existing form of ``non-monetary 
Compensation''--only ``newly introduced forms of non-
monetary Consideration'' may not be withheld Nora that the Wall 
Street article of December by John Wiike, which discussed why 
computer makers would not testify before the Senate Judiciary, 
Committee: ``None of the computer makers that are supposed to 
be the chief beneficiaries of the Justice Department settlement 
agreed to testify. Two major computer makers said in interviews that 
the proposed settlement's ant retaliation provisions are so weak 
that they were unlikely to take advantage of its other provisions 
allowing PC makers to use rival technologies. The government 
settlement `leaves Microsoft as the gatekeeper of innovation 
in the industry,'' an executive of one PC maker said last week.
    Remember that we are talking about the remedy in antitrust case 
where the monopolist has been found to have violated the law in 
spades. Ask yourselves how- it is possible that in this remedy 
Microsoft secured for itself the fight to retaliate against anybody. 
Allowing consumers to exercise real software choice. We believed at 
Netscape that as long as consumers could exercise real browser 
choice, Netscape could compete with Microsoft. We even said we could 
``compete with free''. That is, a scenario where our 
customers paid for browsers and Microsoft gave its browser away for 
free.
    We ultimately were unable to compete with a free product that 
was bolted to the operating system for anticompetitive reasons.
    Question 4. Does the PFJ empower the consumer to make choices 
about what software to use, and if so, does it require Microsoft to 
respect those choices in the future? Two of the key provisions of 
the PFJ cited by DOJ as instrumental in restoring competition merely 
require Microsoft continue to .engage in business as usual. First, 
DOJ points to the provision that allows PC companies and end users 
to remove ``end user access'' to Microsoft middleware 
(i.e. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Windows Messenger, 
etc). It is important to understand that all ``end user 
access'' really means is the ability to remove the 
``icon'' for the middleware application, not the 
middleware itself. Second, DOJ ``grants'' the PC companies 
``flexibility'' to add or remove icons on the Windows 
desktop.
    We have been down this road before. OEMs will not exercise 
choice to merely remove or add icons because that is not a 
meaningful choice. PC companies have always enjoyed the flexibility 
to add icons to the Windows desktop. Microsoft specifically 
announced in July that OEMs could remove Internet Explorer icons 
from the desktop. And Microsoft bad previously been ordered by the 
Court to display such flexibility in 1998. Until the fundamental 
relationship between Microsoft and the CEMs changes, no OEM will 
avail themselves of this cosmetic flexibility.
    Astonishingly, Microsoft actually seared for itself in the PFJ a 
provision that allows Microsoft to exploit its ``desktop 
sweeper'' to eliminate PC company installed .icons by asking an 
end user if he she warns the PC company-installed configuration 
wiped out after 14 days. Thus, rite PC company flexibility 
provisions will only last on the desktop with certainty for 14 days, 
and after that period, persistent automated queries from Microsoft 
can reverse the effect of the PC company's installations. The 
effect of this provision is to severely devalue the ability of PC 
companies to offer premier desktop space to ISVs--and to 
undermine the ability of PC companies t differentiate their products 
and provide consumes with real choices.
    So, under this remedy, Microsoft gets to undermine the choices 
made by PC companies and grants Microsoft a second, third, and 
truly, infinite bites at the apple, to badger consumes 
into--unknowingly or unwittingly--switching back to 
Microsoft's software. The add remove provisions in the agreement 
only allow for removal of end user access to Microsoft .middleware, 
not the middleware itself. For example, a PC company or a consumer 
might choose to eliminate Microsoft's Internet Explorer and replace 
it with Netscape's Navigator as the default. Under this provision, 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer - not Netscape's Navigator--is 
still used in the MyDocuments, MyMusic, MyPictures and Windows 
Explorer folders. So Microsoft has secured an agreement that insures 
that Internet Explorer is used even when a consumer has chosen 
otherwise. And as stated above, Microsoft has secured in this 
agreement insurance Sat its browser and other middleware remains on 
PCs, even if the icon is removed. That will have the effect of 
guaranteeing that applications writers would not write to Netscape's 
browser.
    As we have seen with the implementation of this approach (i.e., 
icon removal only) with regard to Internet Explorer in Windows XP, 
MSFT can use the presentation, of this option in the utility to make 
it less desirable to end users. And remarkable, the agreement gives 
Microsoft a new weapon to use in its war to preserve the desktop as 
its own can demand that PC companies include icons for non-MSFT 
middleware in the add/remove utility.
    Ask yourself this: we are talking about a remedy that flows from 
a case where Microsoft has brazenly violated antitrust laws. Why in 
the world should Microsoft be able to secure for itself in this 
remedy a provision that allows consumers to remove non-Microsoft 
software? This treats the other companies as if they broke the law, 
not Microsoft.
    CONCLUSION: These are just a few of the provisions that would 
have affected Netscape or a similar company attempting to have a 
successful browser business. As stated above, it is my belief that 
if these provisions had been in effect, it is highly unlikely 
Netscape would have ever been founded.
    If these provisions are allowed to go into effect, no entity 
will be able to secure venture capital financing to compete against 
Microsoft in any aspect of its business.
    Policymakers must understand the consequences of this proposed 
action, I regret not being able to share my views directly with the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, but trust that you will do the necessary 
due diligence before this badly flawed agreement goes forward in the 
courts. The policy signal that will be sent if this agreement is 
finalized is that particularly determined monopolists will be 
rewarded for their intransigence. Is that really the competition 
policy of this country?
WILLIAM H. SORRELL
ATTORNEY GENEILAI
J. WALLACE MALLEY, JR.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHIEF ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF VERMONT
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
109 STATE STREET
MONTPELIER
05609-1001
TEL: (802) 828-3171
FAX: (802) 828--2154
 TTY: (802) 828-3665
CIVIL RICHTS: (802) 828-3657
 http://www:state.vt.us/org
September 20, 2001
Steven A. Ballmer
Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 9.8052-6399
Fax No. 425-936-7329
    Dear Mr. Ballmer:
    In 1998, the Department of Justice and a significant number of 
state attorneys general filed a lawsuit alleging that Microsoft had 
monopoly power in the operating system market and that the company 
had engaged in illegal predatory practices to maintain this 
monopoly. Our states are not parties to the pending litigation. 
However, We have a continuing interest in issues relevant to the 
litigation.
    Today we write to you to express our support for concerns raised 
by the states and

[[Page 30252]]

the Department of Justice in the litigation. We add our voices to 
those calling on Microsoft to remedy the antitrust problems that are 
now evident. We take this action for three reasons.
    First, as a result of the trial record, we now have the ability 
to review a complete record of evidence concerning Microsoft's 
activities over the past several years to maintain its monopoly in 
the operating system market. Second, the district court's finding 6f 
monopoly maintenance was confirmed unanimously by the United States 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Finally, 
given our understanding of Microsoft's new Windows XP operating 
system, which is about to be released, we are concerned that aspects 
of this new product may lead to further erosion of competition in 
various software markets.
    We are concerned that Windows XP may involve additional unlawful 
attempts by Microsoft to maintain its operating system monopoly. 
Notwithstanding the notable technological. achievements imbedded 
into some of the products and services offered by Windows XP, 
Microsoft may have c0nstrueted this new product without due regard 
for relevant legal rulings,'' and without due regard for other: 
issues involving consumer choice and consumer privacy.
    Steven A. Ballmer
    Moreover, there are many state governmental agencies currently 
using existing versions of Windows, and there are significant 
expressions of concern that Microsoft will be in a position to 
withdraw support for products currently in use in favor of Windows 
XP.
    We agree with our colleagues, the litigating states and the 
federal government, that any anti-competitive aspects of Windows XP 
should be addressed. As the Court of Appeals succinctly stated, the 
remedy must, to the extent possible, ``unfetter [the] market 
from anticompetitive conduct, ... and ensure that there remain no 
practices likely to result in monopolization in the future.'' 
We therefore are supportive of efforts of the litigating states and 
the Department of Justice to incorporate Windows XP into the remedy 
phase of the remanded Case.
    Sincerely,
    William H. Sorrell
    Vermont Attorney General
    On behalf of himself and:
    Mark Pryor
    Arkansas Attorney General
    G. Steven Rowe
    Maine Attorney General
    Mike McGrath
    Montana Attorney General
    Phillip McLaughlin
    New Hampshire Attorney General
    Sheldon Whitehouse
    Rhode Island Attorney General
    Written Questions for Charles A. James
    Chairman Patrick Leahy
    ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
    December 20, 2001
    1. Jim Barksdale, the former CEO of Netscape, tells us in a 
written submission that if the proposed settlement had governed 
Microsoft's behavior ten years ago, he would never have been able to 
obtain the venture capital to launch Netscape and, even flit did, 
Microsoft would have been able to crush the company. It is harsh 
criticism of the proposed settlement that it would have made no 
difference and that it would allow Microsoft to engage in the same 
exclusionary practices that extinguished Netscape and crippled Java. 
Do you think that this criticism is fair and, if not, why?
    2. The remedy filed by the non-settling States would require 
that the agreement be enforced by a court-appointed special master 
with the authority to monitor Microsoft's complaints, and with the 
power to investigate, call witnesses, and conduct hearings if the 
company appears to have violated the agreement. Your proposed 
settlement provides for a three- member panel paid for by Microsoft 
that can listen to and investigate complaints, but which lacks the 
independent authority to convene hearings and examine witnesses. 
This panel must turn to the Justice Department for any such 
activity, and its members may not offer testimony themselves in any 
proceeding. Although the three member panel might be helpful in 
gathering some information, in terms of actual enforcement, the 
Justice Department will have to start from scratch with any action. 
In light of the fact that everyone agrees that this is a rapidly-
moving industry, the inherent delays in such a process seem more 
likely to hamper than to enhance Microsoft's compliance with the 
decree. Why did you decide to create this unique and limited panel, 
rather than a more traditional special master?
    3. The Court of Appeals specifically held--twice--that 
commingling the browser and operating system code violated section 2 
of the Sherman Act. Yet, the proposed settlement contains no 
prohibition on commingling code. In your testimony before the 
Committee, you explained that the Department had never taken the 
position that Microsoft should be required to remove code from the 
operating system, and that the proposed settlement is thus 
consistent with a long-standing position of the Department. That 
explanation appears to neglects two things: First, the settlement is 
forward-looking, and second, the court's determination that 
commingling code was an exclusionary act. Taken together, these 
facts suggest that a ban on future exclusionary commingling of code 
is entirely consistent with the Department's position, would provide 
appropriate relief for the violation found, and would help prevent 
its recurrence. Do you agree that such a ban on future exclusionary 
commingling would comport with the Court of Appeals decision? Did 
you consider such a ban? Do you agree that such a ban on future 
exclusionary commingling would be would provide appropriate relief 
for the violation found, and would help prevent its recurrence?
    4. There has never been a Tunney Act proceeding after litigation 
through the court of appeals before. In the first Microsoft-
Department of Justice Tunney Act proceeding in 1994, the court 
suggested that great deference should be given to the appellate 
court's findings. Do you believe that the Court of Appeals'' 
decision provides useful input to the definition of ``public 
interest'' in this unique context?
    5. As I mentioned at the Committee's hearing, in describing your 
settlement, Fortune magazine said: ``Even the loopholes have 
loopholes.'' The settlement limits the types of retaliation 
Microsoft may take against PC manufacturers that want to carry or 
promote non-Microsoft software. By implication the settlement 
appears to give a green light to other types of retaliation. You 
responded to my question about retaliation by saying that the 
settlement would permit collaboration generally approved in the 
antitrust case law. Please clarify the Department's position a 
little further:
    (a) Why does the settlement not ban all types of retaliation?
    (b) The settlement requires Microsoft to treat PC manufacturers 
the same in some respects but in other important respects Microsoft 
is allowed to treat PC manufacturers differently. What are the ways 
in which Microsoft can treat differently PC manufacturers that carry 
competing software compared to those that agree to carry Microsoft 
products exclusively?
    (c) You referred at the hearing to the fact that the settlement 
would permit certain collaborative conduct between Microsoft and 
others. Please explain in detail what types of collaboration are 
permitted by the decree, and what types are forbidden.
    (d) Among the exceptions in the proposed settlement to the bans 
on retaliation, Microsoft is permitted to provide 
``consideration to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft 
product or service where that consideration is commensurate with the 
absolute level or amount of that OEM's development, distribution, 
promotion, or licensing of that Microsoft product or service.'' 
This seems to permit Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they 
can-y Microsoft's products or software; this is just the flip side 
of ``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing 
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands?
    6. In 1995 the Department and Microsoft entered into a Consent 
Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for contempt 
of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed over the 
meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of the 
Decree, including the meaning of the word ``integrate'' as 
that term was used in the Decree. Given the prior litigation between 
the Department and Microsoft over the proper interpretation of the 
1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that Microsoft and the Department 
should have a common, explicit understanding of the meaning and 
scope of this proposed Final Judgment before it is entered?
    Written Questions for Jay Himes
    Chairman Patrick Leahy
    ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
    December 20, 2001
    1. A number of states are still litigating this case against 
Microsoft, and have submitted a remedy proposal to the district 
court. That proposal is stronger in significant respects than your 
proposed settlement. For example, they propose a court-appointed 
special master with the authority to gather evidence and conduct 
hearings as part of the enforcement mechanism.

[[Page 30253]]

    (a) Do you believe that the more stringent provisions sought by 
the litigating states are not in the public interest?
    (b) Did you consider restrictions similar to those sought by the 
non-settling parties or did you think that Microsoft would not agree 
to them?
    2. The Com1 of Appeals found that Microsoft's deception of Java 
developers and ``pollution of the Java standard'' 
constituted exclusionary practices in violation of Section 2 of the 
Sherman Act, and eliminated its competitive presence in the desktop 
realm. Unlike Navigator, Java may still be a viable competitive 
force, in other arenas. What provision, if any, in the settlement 
agreement prohibits Microsoft from repeating such an act?
    3. As I understand the proposed settlement, Microsoft need only 
disclose APIs and documentation to middleware developers when 
Microsoft itself has a competing product. Some critics say this 
would allow Microsoft to determine the pace of innovation on the 
desktop by simply deciding not to develop or market competing 
products until it is ready with its own product--or until it 
has swallowed up a likely competitor. Allowing Microsoft, in 
essence, to determine the pace of desktop innovation would not aid 
the software industry generally, and not benefit consumers. How do 
you respond to this criticism?
    4. A loophole seems to be created by the exception to the 
requirement of APIs and documentation disclosure. Microsoft is 
supposed to disclose APIs, documentation, and communications 
protocols to permit interoperability of middleware and servers with 
Windows operating systems. But Microsoft does not need to disclose 
such information if it would, in Microsoft's opinion, compromise the 
security of various systems, which are very broadly defined. What do 
you say to the critics who fear that this loophole may swallow the 
API disclosure requirement?
    5. The non-settling states'' proposed remedy requires 
Microsoft to release technical information necessary for middleware 
to be able to interoperate with Windows as soon as Microsoft gives 
its own developers that information. The proposed settlement only.
    Requires such disclosure when Microsoft puts out a major test 
version of a new Windows release. Presumably promotion of 
competition is the animating idea behind this provision, so why did 
you not insist that other non-Microsoft developers have this 
information at the same time Microsoft developers did?
    6. In 1995 the Department of Justice and Microsoft entered into 
a Consent Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for 
contempt of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed 
over the meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of 
the Decree, including the meaning of the word 
``integrate'' as that term was used in the Decree. Given 
the prior litigation between the Department and Microsoft over the 
proper interpretation of the 1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that 
Microsoft and the settling plaintiffs should have a common, explicit 
understanding of the meaning and scope of this proposed Final 
Judgment before it is entered?
    7. Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed Final 
Judgment as agreed upon by the settling plaintiffs and Microsoft 
should be precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the 
public at large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding 
of the Judgment?
    8. If Microsoft were to disagree with the settling 
plaintiffs'' interpretation of one or more important provisions 
of the proposed Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a 
potentially serious problem?
    9. Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify 
any significant disagreement between Microsoft and the settling 
plaintiffs over the correct interpretation of the proposed Final 
Judgment now, before the Judgment is entered by the Court, rather 
than through protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995 
Consent Decree?
    10. Does the Competitive Impact Statement set forth the settling 
plaintiffs'' definitive interpretation of its proposed Final 
Judgment with Microsoft?
    11. Has Microsoft informed the settling plaintiffs that it has 
any disagreement with the interpretation of the Final Judgment as 
set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?
    12. Can the public at large rely upon the Competitive Impact 
Statement as the definitive interpretation of the nature and scope 
of Microsoft's obligations under the Final Judgment?
    13. If the public cannot rely on the interpretation of the 
proposed Final Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact 
Statement, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-upon 
interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's obligations 
under the Final Judgment?
    1. In your 1997 testimony on the first Microsoft-Department of 
Justice consent decree, you said that ``it seems a bit 
shortsighted (or perhaps even hysterical) to believe that Microsoft 
is such a juggernaut that putting extra sand in its saddle bags is 
justified to even up the odds for the competition.'' In light 
of the fact that the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated 
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, abusing its operating system monopoly 
to the detriment of consumers, do you still believe that it is 
``hysterical'' to inquire into, and seek to end, the 
company's anticompetitive practices?
    2. The Tunney Act requires that Microsoft file with the district 
court ``any and all written or oral communications by or on 
behalf of [Microsoft]... with any officer or employee of the United 
States concerning or relevant to such proposal, except that any such 
communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attome3, 
General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone shall be 
excluded from the requirements of this subsection.'' You have 
recently been named as counsel of record; do you believe that this 
provision requires disclosure of communications by you to the 
Justice Department prior to the date upon which you became counsel 
of record? Do you believe it requires disclosure of contacts made on 
behalf of Microsoft to members of Congress? How do you define 
``concerning or relevant to'' the proposed settlement? Do 
you believe that it covers anything more than the actual 
negotiations of the decree?
    3. Microsoft's retaliation against OEMs that resisted carrying 
Microsoft's products featured largely in the evidence at trial, and 
the proposed settlement seems to address the Court of Appeals'' 
holding that such retaliation violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. 
While the settlement does state that Microsoft cannot retaliate 
against an OEM that is supposing a competing operating system or 
middleware, there is also a ``carve-out'' to that 
restriction, which permits Microsoft to provide ``consideration 
to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft product or service where 
that consideration is commensurate with the absolute level or amount 
of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of 
that Microsoft product or service.'' This seems to permit 
Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they carry Microsoft's 
products or software; this is just the flip side of 
``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing 
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands?
    4. Microsoft is given 12 months to come into compliance with 
this proposed settlement; what tasks must it actually undertake that 
will require so much time?
    5. The proposed settlement agreement provides that Microsoft's 
disclosure of APIs and documentation for an updated version of 
Windows in a ``timely manner'', and ``timely 
manner'' seems to be defined as the time at which Microsoft 
makes the new Windows version available to 150,000 or more beta 
testers. Does Microsoft routinely send beta test versions to so many 
testers? When has it done so in the past? Can't Microsoft avoid the 
disclose provision by simply limiting the number of beta testers?
    6. If a PC manufacturer decides that it would like to remove 
Windows Moviemaker, is that action protected from the ban on 
retaliation in the proposed settlement? If a representative of a PC 
manufacturer or a software developer testified before this Committee 
or before the district court in the on-going states'' case, 
would the settlement ban retaliation against them?
    7. Software developers that take advantage of the middleware API 
disclosure are required by the proposed settlement to cross-license 
their products back to Microsoft. Presumably this is of great 
benefit to Microsoft, but how does it fit into remedying the 
antitrust violations found in court?
    8. The provision of the proposed statement addressing the 
availability of server communications protocols refers to protocols 
that are ``used to interoperate natively, i.e., without the 
addition of software code to the client operating system product, 
with a Microsoft server operating system product.'' I am 
confused about the meaning of ``natively,'' and the 
Competitive Impact Statement does not clarify it. As the issue of 
Microsoft's possible abuses in the server arena are even now before 
the European Union's antitrust enforcement branch, I am interested 
to know precisely what your

[[Page 30254]]

proposal accomplishes, and whether it addresses the EU's concerns as 
well.
    9. The proposed settlement's prohibition on retaliation against 
software developers creates an exception from that prohibition for 
agreements that ``are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable 
scope and duration'' in connection with obliging a developer to 
use, distribute, promote, or develop software for Microsoft. What do 
you envision that exception to cover, and more importantly, what 
does it leave within the ban against retaliation?
    10. The proposed settlement permits the removal of the Internet 
Explorer icon, but as I understand it, even if a user chooses to 
remove Internet Explorer, IE will continue to pop up in MyDocuments, 
MyMusic, and MyPictures. Is this understanding correct, and if so, 
how can a User ever be free of Internet Explorer?
    11. In 1995 the Department and Microsoft entered into a Consent 
Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for contempt 
of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed over the 
meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of the 
Decree, including the meaning of the word ``integrate'' as 
that term was used in the Decree. Given the prior litigation between 
the Department and Microsoft over the proper interpretation of the 
1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that Microsoft and the Department 
should have a common, explicit understanding of the meaning and 
scope of this proposed Final Judgment before it is entered?
    12. Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed 
Final Judgment as agreed upon by the Department and Microsoft should 
be precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the public at 
large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding of the 
Judgment?
    13. If Microsoft and the Department were to disagree about the 
correct interpretation of one or more important provisions of the 
proposed Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a potentially 
serious problem?
    14. Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify 
any significant disagreement between Microsoft and the Department 
over the correct interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment now, 
before the Judgment is entered by the Com-t, rather than through 
protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995 Consent Decree?
    15. Can the public at large rely upon the Department's 
Competitive Impact Statement as the definitive interpretation of the 
nature and scope of Microsoft's obligations under the Final 
Judgment? If not, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-
upon interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's 
obligations under the Final Judgment?
    16. Does the Competitive Impact Statement accurately reflect 
Microsoft's interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment?
    17. Recognizing that the Department's Competitive Impact 
Statement cannot address every conceivable issue that may arise in 
the future concerning the proposed Final Judgment, is there anything 
stated in the Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft 
disagrees?
    18. Has Microsoft informed the Department that it has any 
disagreement with the Department's interpretation of the Final 
Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?
    19. Does Microsoft disagree with anything stated in the 
Department's Competitive Impact Statement concerning the meaning and 
scope of the proposed Final Judgment?
    20. Will you commit on behalf of Microsoft to inform this 
Committee in writing of each and every statement in the Department's 
Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft disagrees? Will 
you commit to do so within the next 15 days so that the public can 
understand what disagreements Microsoft has with the Competitive 
Impact Statement before the Tunney Act comment period expires?
    21. Was there anything in Assistant Attorney General 
James'' testimony before this
    22. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at page 
38 that: ``if a Windows Operating System Product is using all 
the Communications Protocols that it contains to communicate with 
two servers, one of which is a Microsoft server and one of which is 
a competing server that has licensed and fully implemented all the 
Communications Protocols, the Windows Operating System Product 
should behave identically in its interaction with both the Microsoft 
and non-Microsoft servers.'' Does Microsoft agree that this 
accurately states one objective of Microsoft's obligations under 
section III(E) of the proposed Final Judgment?
    23. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at page 
36 that: ``Section III.E. will prevent Microsoft from 
incorporating into its Windows Operating System Products features or 
functionality with which its own server software can interoperate, 
and then refusing to make available information about those features 
that non-Microsoft servers need in order to have the same 
opportunities to interoperate with the Windows Operating System 
Product.'' Does Microsoft agree that this accurately states one 
objective of Microsoft's obligations under section III(E) of the 
proposed Final Judgment?
    25. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at page 
37-38 that: ``Because the Communications Protocols must 
be licensed `for use'' by such third parties, the 
licensing necessarily must be accompanied by sufficient disclosure 
to allow licensees fully to utilize all the functionality of each 
Communications Protocol.'' Does Microsoft agree that this 
accurately states one objective of Microsoft's obligations 
under section III(E) of the proposed Final Judgment?

Questions for Assistant Attorney General Charles A. James

    1. One of the principal concerns voiced by critics of the 
Proposed Settlement is that it lacks an effective enforcement 
mechanism. These critics suggest that some type of fast-track 
enforcement mechanism, such as the appointment of a special master, 
is necessary to ensure compliance. Could you please explain: First, 
why you believe the enforcement avenues provided for by the Proposed 
Settlement are sufficient; and, Second, how you envision effective 
enforcement actually being carried out in the real world?
    2. Because the three-person Technical Counsel created by the 
Proposed Settlement has no enforcement powers, won't the level of 
enforcement of the Proposed Settlement depend principally on how 
proactive the Department and State Attorneys General are in 
dedicating resources and attention to prompt and effective oversight 
and enforcement? What resources does the Department plan on 
committing to enforcement of the Proposed Settlement?
    3. In my opening statement, I raised the issue of prompt and 
effective enforcement in high-technology markets. As the DC Circuit 
clearly recognized, the passage of time frequently overtakes alleged 
anticompetitive actions, making them--in the DC Circuit's 
language--``obsolete'' before a remedy is devised and 
implemented. In your view, what can be done to minimize this problem 
and ensure that antitrust remedies are developed early enough to 
provide meaningful relief?.
    4. Could you explain the pros and cons of having the enforcement 
function performed by governmental agencies as opposed to a special 
master or adjudicatory panel of some type?
    5. Could you also explain why you oppose--assuming that you 
do oppose--an alternate or additional enforcement mechanism?
    6. As you know, I believe that one important aspect of the 
Internet is the freedom that consumers have to choose where to go 
and what websites to visit. Currently, consumers can choose to go to 
whatever websites they want. Commentators and industry participants 
argue that there is a legitimate fear that an Internet mediator 
might--for one reason or another--decide to limit access 
to certain sites while traffic is directed to other sites, or decide 
that certain sites will be treated differently than other sites in 
ways that push consumers in the direction of favored sites instead 
of leaving the choice entirely and fairly to consumers. Who do you 
believe should choose where a consumer can go online, the consumer 
or the Internet mediator, be it an Internet service provider, a 
software company, or a cable or satellite company? Also, could you 
please explain whether and why you believe this is an important 
competition policy concern?
    7. Some critics claim that the only real penalty Microsoft faces 
for violating the Proposed Settlement is the extension of the terms 
of the Settlement for two additional years. Is that an accurate 
criticism; and, if not, could you please briefly explain the 
penalties faced by Microsoft if it fails to abide by the Proposed 
Settlement?
    8. Could you please expand on why you believe the Department has 
sufficient expertise to accurately evaluate the competitive 
implications of software design and other technical development 
choices? Additionally, specifically what has the Department done to 
ensure that it has the expertise necessary to assess at an early 
stage both the lawfulness and potential anticompetitive effects of 
highly-technical actions taken by companies such as

[[Page 30255]]

Microsoft? Does the Department have a specific plan for allocating 
resources or personnel to develop the necessary expertise to 
identify and take effective action while potential antitrust 
problems are still on the horizon?
    9. In his written testimony (pp. 18-19), Mr. Himes of the 
New York State Attorney General's Office briefly discusses the 
importance of the Proposed Settlement's definition of 
``Middleware.'' The DC Circuit defined middleware very 
simply as ``software products that expose their own APIs [or 
`Application Programming Interfaces'].'' Microsoft, 
253 F.3d at 53. Could you explain why the Proposed Settlement adopts 
a narrower, two-prong definition? Could you also further explain the 
distribution threshold contained in the definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products,'' requiring that--to meet 
the definition--at least one million copies of the Middleware 
Product have been distributed within the United States during the 
previous year? Will this threshold provision disadvantage innovation 
among start-up entrepreneurs or those who develop software for 
highly-specialized markets as some have criticized? Is there some 
other way to address the concerns underlying this ``one million 
copy'' threshold?
    10. I found Mr. Jim Barksdale's letter noteworthy in several 
respects, but am particularly interested in his claim that the 
Proposed Settlement would not have prevented Microsoft's unlawful 
actions against Netscape. Could you please discuss whether the 
Proposed Settlement would have prevented the actions taken by 
Microsoft against Netscape that the DC Circuit held to be unlawful 
had the Proposed Settlement been in existence in 1995, and, if so, 
how?

Questions for Jay Himes

    1. I realize that you support the Proposed Settlement on the 
basis that it compares favorably to the set of remedies that many 
predict would have resulted from further litigation. However, 
setting that aside for the moment, could you tell us what particular 
merit-if any-you see in the Remedial Proposals filed by the non-
settling states?
    2. Please expand specifically on the pros and cons of the 
various proposals for alternative enforcement mechanisms that were 
considered and rejected in the settlement discussions. In particular 
could you give us your view of the provision, contained in the non-
settling parties'' Remedial Proposal, that would provide for a 
special master?
    3. Please explain, from the perspectives of the settling State 
plaintiffs, whether and how the Proposed Settlement sufficiently 
protects against Microsoft leveraging its monopoly power in 
operating systems into the Internet-based services market and the 
server market?

Questions for Charles F. ``Rick'' Rule

    1. Concerns have been voiced about potential 
``loopholes'' that might be created by ambiguities in 
various definitions that are fundamental to determining Microsoft's 
responsibilities under the settlement. Do you agree that the 
``Competitive Impact Statement'' accurately memorializes 
the spirit and underlying considerations of the Proposed Settlement 
agreement; and do you further agree that it should be used as an 
authoritative interpretive guide in settling disputes about the 
practical application of the Proposed Settlement?
    2. Could you please identify the specific aspects of the 
Competitive Impact Statement that you believe do not accurately 
represent Microsoft's understanding of the Proposed Settlement? 
grad, to the extent you believe that the Competitive Impact 
Statement is inaccurate, would Microsoft be willing to provide a 
detailed description of these perceived inaccuracies along with 
specific language describing Microsoft's understanding of the issue, 
language, or provision, the accuracy of which Microsoft disputes?
    3. In your written testimony (p. 9) you briefly address the 
Proposed Settlement's prohibition of retaliation by Microsoft 
against computer makers. You summarize the provision in the 
settlement stating that ``Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
anything in [Microsoft's] Windows operating system.'' Id. 
Concerns, however, have been raised regarding perceived limitations 
on this anti-retaliation provision. Could you explain either why the 
perceived caveats were included in the anti-retaliation provision as 
well as why you believe that these perceived caveats do not actually 
allow Microsoft to engage in substantial retaliation against 
computer makers?
    4. Is it your position that the anti-retaliation provision does 
in fact prohibit Microsoft from all forms of retaliation against 
computer software makers that choose to ship software that competes 
with Microsoft products; and, if not, how do you answer the 
criticisms that the provision is insufficient to effectively prevent 
retaliation?
    5. Several media sources and commentators have reported that 
major computer makers--or ``OEMs''--such as 
Hewlett Packard, Compaq, Dell, and Gateway, are heavily dependent on 
Microsoft, which--some have argued--may explain the lack 
of vocal opposition by these companies to the Proposed Settlement. 
With this in mind, how can the Proposed Settlement's substantial 
reliance on these companies to incorporate software that competes 
with Microsoft products on the computers they distribute be trusted 
to result in actual competition in the middleware market?
    6. Could you please explain, in detail, what incentives you 
believe will actually lead OEMs to install software that competes 
against Microsoft software? Are you aware of particular competing 
software that OEMs might currently wish to install in favor of 
similar Microsoft products?
    7. With respect to concerns raised regarding the lack of a 
strong enforcement mechanism in the Proposed Settlement, could you 
please expand upon the reasons that you believe the Proposed 
Settlement ensures effective enforcement? Could you also explain 
your view of how enforcement will occur? Finally, could you explain 
why- assuming that this is 3'our position--the proposed 
alternative enforcement mechanisms are either unnecessary, 
undesirable, or both?

Questions for Professor Lawrence Lessig

    1. In your book, you make the case for keeping the Internet 
``neutral and open.'' Could you briefly describe the 
danger that you foresee, in both a competition and a larger policy 
context, as consumers mi=m-ate to higher capacity connections from 
our current narrowband connections?
    2. One concern I have consistently raised elsewhere, including 
in merger and monopolization contexts, has been possible limitations 
being placed on consumer freedom by an access provider, whether an 
Internet service provider, a cable company, a satellite company, or 
another Internet access facilitator. If there is a legitimate fear 
that an Internet mediator might--for one reason or 
another--decide to limit access to certain sites or drive 
traffic to other specified sites? If so, what do you believe to be 
the best method of safeguarding and preserving the freedom of the 
Internet?
    3. As you know, on the Internet, anyone can self-publish their 
music, their artwork, their writings, and those who are interested 
in those works can have access to them, and neither the creator nor 
the consumer necessarily need the mediation of a publisher. Works 
that are important to a few, but cannot make it in a traditional 
publishing context, have a place for their fans on the Internet. I 
have said elsewhere that it would be a great shame if the wide-open 
access available on the Internet were narrowed down in the way the 
offline world often is. Could you please explain who you believe 
should choose where a consumer can go online, the consumer or the 
Internet mediator, be it an Internet service provider, a software 
company, or a cable or satellite company, and could you explain why 
this is an important question?

Questions for All Witnesses on Panel III

    1. Both commentators and several witnesses (in their written 
testimony) defend the Proposed Settlement by arguing that its terms 
are as good as--or even better than--what would have been 
obtained through further litigation. Several have also pointed out 
that it would take at least two more years to get a remedy in place 
by means of litigation. Could you please explain whether and why you 
believe that further settlement negotiations or litigation would be 
in the public interest?
    2. In light of the number of claims from the original complaint 
that the DC Circuit found to lack merit, is it reasonable to believe 
that any judgement resulting from further litigation would be 
significantly better that the Proposed Settlement?
    3. At the hearing, I emphasized the need for prompt antitrust 
enforcement in quickly-evolving markets. Could you please explain 
whether and why you believe that the benefits of having an imperfect 
settlement now are outweighed by those of having a possibly better 
settlement at some point in the future?
    JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON MICROSOFT SETTLEMENT

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KOHL

    Panel I--Charles James

[[Page 30256]]

    1. Mr. James, a unanimous Court of Appeals held that Microsoft 
has violated our antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its 
monopoly. It seems pretty common sense that if we want to fix that 
violation, the settlement you are advocating should: (1) end the 
unlawful conduct; (2) avoid a recurrence of the violation; and (3) 
and undo the anticompetitive consequences of the illegal behavior. 
Indeed, the Supreme Court has said that we should ``den to the 
defendant the fruits'' of its illegal conduct. As you know, 
when this case was first filed, one of the main problems was that 
Microsoft's illegal conduct had nearly driven a competing maker of 
Internet browsing software--Netscape Navigator--out of 
business. But today, Microsoft has a greater than 85% share of 
browsing software. And Netscape is no longer in business as an 
independent company and no longer is a serious threat as a competing 
platform.
    So I have the following questions: how does this proposed 
settlement proposal in any way deny Microsoft the gains resulting 
from its illegal, anti-competitive conduct? Does it do anything, for 
example, to undo Microsoft's victory in the ``browser 
wars''?
    2. Five years from now do you think it is likely that Microsoft 
will still have 95% of the operating system market? If so, should 
this concern us?
    3. We are right now in the middle of the holiday shopping 
season, and millions of Americans are going to the computer stores 
to buy new computers. When they reach the store, they have a choice 
of many different machines made by many different computer 
manufacturers, such as Compaq, Dell, Gateway, IBM, and HP, to name a 
few. But when it comes to the software that operates the machine 
they face a very different picture. With the exception of the 
machines sold by Apple, the consumer has no choice but to buy a 
computer pre-loaded with Microsoft's Windows operating system.
    Is there anything in the proposed settlement agreement likely to 
change this picture? Why can't consumers have the same competitive 
choices in computer software--specifically operating system 
software--as they have today with respect to deciding which 
machine to buy?
    4. Critics of the proposed settlement claim it is full of 
loopholes, and that these loopholes will make it easy for Microsoft 
to evade its terms. I'd like to focus on one thing critics argue is 
an unnecessary loophole. The settlement contains an important 
provision that lets computer makers load certain types of non-
Microsoft software on their machines without any fear of retaliation 
from Microsoft. But Microsoft can retaliate in some instances. For 
example, only competing software that distributed at least one 
million copies in the United States in the last year receives 
protection. No such protection is imposed upon competing software 
which has distributed less than one million copies.
    Commenting on this provision in the Washington Post, James 
Barksdale, the founder of Netscape, wrote ``Anyone who 
understands the [computer] industry knows this is no protection, for 
the new inventor will always be steam-rolled by the powerful 
Microsoft. The dreamers and tinkerers whose better mousetrap has not 
yet been proved should just close shop. The ultimate losers are the 
potential consumers of these lost ideas.''
    (a) Why is this limitation found in the settlement? Won't it be 
difficult for software that has not yet been widely distributed to 
gain a competitive foothold if Microsoft is not required to allow 
computer users and manufacturers access to it on the desktop? And 
why isn't Mr. Barksdale right--aren't consumers the losers if 
Microsoft is permitted to deny such small, start- up software 
manufacturers access to the computer desktop?
    (b) Please give specific examples of ``non-Microsoft 
middleware products'' (as defined in the proposed consent 
decree, section VI.N) that have distributed at least one million 
copies in the United States in the past year, and examples of those 
that have not.
    (c) What types of research and/or objective methods are used to 
measure such distribution today? Which studies or objective criteria 
did you use to set the one million dollar mark?
    5. In the proposed consent decree, with respect to current 
products, the definition of Microsoft Middleware Product is locked 
into specific products (section VI.K.1 of the Proposed Final 
Judgment). Where it is prospective, the definition of Microsoft 
Middleware Product allows Microsoft to avoid its reach if it does 
not satisfy all of the elements of the definition (found in section 
VI.K.2).
    (a) Why do you believe this definition is sufficient to restore 
competition in the middleware market?
    (b) Why is the definition of middleware in the proposed consent 
decree different from the one used by the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals, or the one used by Judge Jackson in his interim remedy?
    (c) Why is MSN Explorer excluded from the current products that 
constitute Microsoft Middleware Products in section VI.K.1 of the 
Proposed Final Judgment?
    6. Many believe Microsoft is using its operating system monopoly 
to gain dominance in other types of software products. For example, 
five years ago, Microsoft had only about a 20% market share in 
Internet browsing software. Today it has an 86% share. Five years 
ago, Microsoft had 43% share in word processing software. Today 
Microsoft Word software has a 94% market share.
    What provisions in the settlement will prevent Microsoft from 
gaining dominant market shares in new software products, just as it 
has with respect to other types of software?
    7(a). Mr. James, if this settlement is adequate to restore 
competition and remedy Microsoft's illegal conduct, why have nine 
state attorneys general who initially joined the Justice Department 
in suing Microsoft refused to sign on to the settlement but have 
instead proposed their own settlement?
    (b) Are you willing to consider modifications to the proposed 
settlement in order to secure the consent of additional state 
attorneys general? If so, what modifications would you consider?
    8. The proposed consent decree lasts for only five years (unless 
a Court finds Microsoft has engaged in systematic violations of the 
decree, in which case it is extended for another two years).
    (a) Can you inform me in which past monopoly cases brought by 
the government where a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act has 
been found, the federal courts have limited their conduct remedies 
against the monopolist to only five years?
    (b) Why have you limited the remedy to five years in this case? 
How can we be sure that the five year term of the settlement is 
sufficient to restore competition to this market?
    (c) Why do the restraints on Microsoft's conduct in some 
instances take as long as one year to go into effect?
    (d) How likely do you think software developers will be to 
develop new products based on a decree that will protect them for 
only five years?
    (e) Will you commit initiating new investigations and, if 
necessary, new court proceedings, if Microsoft behaves in an anti-
competitive manner in the future?

Panel II

For Rick Rule

    1. Mr. Rule, in the past your client Microsoft has been adamant 
in denying it was a monopolist--despite its 95% share of 
computer operating systems--and that it in any way violated the 
antitrust laws. Now, the unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals has 
ruled that Microsoft indeed is a monopolist and indeed acted 
illegally to maintain its monopoly. Will this ruling--and 
Microsoft's experience in this litigation--in any way chasten 
Microsoft into behaving more responsibly? Is Microsoft now willing 
to recognize that it is a monopolist and, as a result, has 
obligations to deal with competing businesses in a way that would 
not exist if did not have monopoly power in its business?
    2. Please identify for us five specific ways in which the 
proposed settlement, once it is in force, will compel Microsoft to 
change its business practices in a manner which will benefit 
consumers.
    3. The proposed consent decree contains prohibitions on 
Microsoft retaliating against computer makers who choose to install 
in their machine software products that compete with software made 
by Microsoft. But many wonder if Microsoft will be able to offer 
financial incentives to accomplish essentially the same thing. For 
example, could Microsoft offer to pay incentive amounts to computer 
makers who feature or promote Microsoft software on their machines?
    4. One important issue the settlement was intended to address 
was Microsoft's ability to penalize computer makers that load non-
Microsoft software onto their machines. Under the settlement, can 
Microsoft still bar a computer maker from putting WordPerfect word 
processing software or Quicken financial software pre-installed on 
their machine? If so, why isn't Microsoft's ability to place such 
restrictions on computer makers a problem for competition?

For Jay Himes

    Mr. Himes, as you know, nine of your fellow states that 
originally joined you and

[[Page 30257]]

the federal government in suing Microsoft have refused to consent to 
this settlement, and, just last Friday, proposed additional 
remedies. Why did these other states split ranks with you and the 
federal government? Would you be willing to consider modifications 
to this proposed settlement in order to gain their assent?

Panel III

    For Lawrence Lessig
    1. Professor Lessig, do you believe this settlement is adequate 
to restore competition in the computer software industry.'? Why or 
why not?
    2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you 
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
    (b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other 
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should 
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
    3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one 
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring 
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install 
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with 
respect to software which has distributed less than one million 
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?

For Mark Cooper

    1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore 
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
    2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you 
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
    (b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other 
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should 
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
    3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one 
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring 
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install 
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with 
respect to software which has distributed less than one million 
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?

For Michael Szulik

    1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore 
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
    2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you 
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
    (b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other 
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should 
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
    3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one 
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring 
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install 
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with 
respect to software which has distributed less than one million 
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?
    4. Mr. Szulik, your company, Red Hat, makes a competing 
operating system, Linux. Will this settlement make it easier for you 
to compete with Microsoft? If so, how?

For Mitchell Kertzman

    1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore 
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
    2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you 
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
    (b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other 
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should 
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
    3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one 
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring 
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install 
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with 
respect to software which has distributed less than one million 
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation? Won't this 
provision make it difficult for small or start-up software 
manufacturers that make software that competes with Microsoft's 
products to gain access to the computer desktop?

For Jonathan Zuck

    1. Do you believe this settlement is adequate to restore 
competition in the computer software industry? Why or why not?
    2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you 
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
    (b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other 
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should 
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
    3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one 
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring 
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install 
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with 
respect to software which has distributed less than one million 
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation?
    4. Mr. Zuck, your organization, which is one of several trade 
associations representing smaller software manufacturers, has been 
generally supportive of this settlement, while other competitive 
software manufacturers have been very critical. Why doesn't your 
organization share the concerns of many other smaller software 
manufacturers?
    5. Explain the principal ways this settlement will bring more 
competition to the software market.
    ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look To The Future''

Senator DeWine

    Questions To Witnesses

I. Senator DeWine's Questions for The Honorable Charles James, 
Assistant Attoney General for the Antitrust Division:

    1. The term of the proposed settlement is only five years, while 
many other antitrust consent decrees last for ten years. The 
Department has suggested that a shorter time period is justified 
because this industry changes rapidly and a longer decree may not be 
warranted after five years. Given that the Department of Justice has 
the ability to go to the court and seek to modify a consent decree 
or terminate it if market conditions warrant such a change, why not 
impose a longer period of enforcement, and then decide later if it 
needs to be modified or abandoned?
    2. As the Court of Appeals in this case noted, the Supreme Court 
has indicated that a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek 
to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,'' 
``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.'' 
Do you believe that this is the appropriate standard to use? If so, 
do you believe the proposed final judgment denies Microsoft the 
fruits of its illegal acts? Specificall3, can you discuss whether 
Microsoft has been denied the fruits of its effort to maintain a 
monopoly in the operating system?
    3. The proposed settlement has some prohibitions against 
Microsoft retaliating against computer manufacturers that place 
competing software on their computers-these provisions are intended 
to allow manufacturers to offer non-Microsoft products if they 
choose. I understand that Microsoft currently offers incentives to 
computer manufacturers if they can get computers to ``boot 
up'' quickly. Some believe that computer manufacturers will not 
want to slow down the start-up time by placing additional software 
on the computer because they will risk losing the incentive payment. 
Does the proposed settlement deal with this problem?
    4. The Appellate Court noted that the applications barrier 
protects Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Court stated 
that this allows Microsoft the ability to maintain its monopoly even 
in the face of competition from potentially ``superior'' 
new rivals. In what manner do you believe the proposed settlement 
addresses the applications barrier?
    5. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from 
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors 
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because 
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed 
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters 
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court 
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre- 
installing rival software. And second, it seems that software 
developers are more likely to write their programs to operate on 
Microsoft's middleware if they ``know that the Microsoft 
middleware will always be on the computer whereas competing products 
may not be. Even if consumers are unaware that code is commingled, 
should we be

[[Page 30258]]

concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the 
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what 
concerns are raised by removing the code?
    6. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires 
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in 
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First, 
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality 
ofcM1 antitrust remedies, i.e., that they don't aim to punish? And 
second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to dissuade 
other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of conduct in 
which Microsoft engaged?
    7. Nine states didn't join with the Department of Justice's 
proposed final judgment because they didn't believe it adequately 
addressed competitive problems. These states recently filed their 
own remedy proposals. These states assert that one fruit of 
Microsoft's illegal conduct is Microsoft's dominant share of the 
internet browser market. They propose to deny Microsoft this benefit 
of its violations by requiring it to open-source the code for 
Internet Explorer. What do you believe the competitive impact of 
such action would be?
    8. Given Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system, 
some believe that merely allowing computer manufacturers to place 
competing software and icons on the operating system will not impede 
Microsoft's ability to capture a dominant share of any product that 
it binds to its operating system. Do you believe that media players, 
instant messaging services, and other competing products will be 
able to compete with similar MS products that are bound to the 
operating system?
    9. Many have criticized the proposed final judgment saying it 
has loopholes in it that will allow Microsoft to continue operating 
as it has done in the past. For example, the proposed final judgment 
clearly seeks to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against computer 
manufacturers that install competing software onto the computer. 
However, because the provisions are limited to specific practices or 
types of software, and apply only to ``agreements'' 
between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, many believe that 
Microsoft will find alternative methods of controlling the practices 
of computer manufacturers. Do you believe competition would be 
better served if Microsoft were broadly prohibited from retaliating 
against computer manufacturers?
    10. The Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft's practices which 
undermined the competitive threat of Sun's Java technology was an 
antitrust violation. The remedy proposed by the states that do not 
support the DOJ's proposed settlement would require Microsoft to 
distribute Java with its browser as a means of restoring Java's 
position in the market. Do you believe this would be beneficial to 
competition? What does the DOJ's proposed settlement do to restore 
this competition?
    11. Definition U. of the Proposed Final Judgment appears to 
allow Microsoft to determine in its sole discretion what constitutes 
the operating system. The Court of Appeals left open the possibility 
of a tying case against Microsoft. Will this provision essentially 
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against 
Microsoft? Why do you give Microsoft the ability to make this 
determination?
    12. Many antitrust cases involve the appointment of a special 
master who has some level of enforcement authority. This proposed 
final judgement does not do that and instead relies primarily upon 
standard civil and criminal contempt proceedings, as well as a 
special three person panel. Why has the Division elected not to 
appoint a special master that may speed effective enforcement, 
especially given the Division's concern for how rapidly this market 
changes?
    13. The Department of Justice has indicated that one motivation 
for entering into this settlement was to provide immediate relief 
and avoid lengthy court proceedings. At the same time, many of the 
provision of the settlement don't become active for up to 12 months 
after the settlement is enacted. Given your belief that relief 
should be immediate, why wait so long for these provisions to become 
active?
    14. One provision of the proposed final judgment requires 
Microsoft to allow consumers or computer manufacturers to enable 
access to competing products. However, it appears that III.H. of the 
Stipulation and VI.N. indicate that for a product to qualify for 
these protections it must have had a million copies distributed in 
the United States within the previous ,ear. This seems to run 
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new 
competition. Is this in fact the case? And if so, why are these 
protections limited to larger competitors?

Senator DeWine's Questions for Jay Himes, Antitrust Bureau Chief, 
Office of the Attorney General, New York

    1. The term of the proposed settlement is only five years, while 
many other antitrust consent decrees last for ten years. It has been 
suggested that a shorter time period is justified because this 
industry changes rapidly and a longer decree may not be warranted 
after five years. Given that the Department of Justice has the 
ability to go to the court and seek to modify a consent decree or 
terminate it if market conditions warrant such a change, why not 
impose a longer period of enforcement, and then decide later if it 
needs to be modified or abandoned?
    2. As the Court of Appeals in this case noted, the Supreme Court 
has indicated that a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek 
to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,'' 
``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.'' 
Do you believe that this is the appropriate standard to use? If so, 
does the proposed final judgment deny Microsoft the fruits of its 
illegal acts? Specifically, can you discuss whether Microsoft has 
been denied the fruits of its effort to maintain a monopoly in the 
operating system?
    3. The proposed settlement has some prohibitions against 
Microsoft retaliating against computer manufacturers that place 
competing software on their computers-these provisions are intended 
to allow manufacturers to offer non-Microsoft products if they 
choose. I understand that Microsoft currently offers incentives to 
computer manufacturers if they can get computers to ``boot 
up'' quickly. Some believe that computer manufacturers will not 
want to slow down the start-up time by placing additional software 
on the computer because they will risk losing the incentive payment. 
Does the proposed settlement deal with this problem?
    4. The Appellate Court noted that the applications barrier 
protects Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Court stated 
that this allows Microsoft the ability to maintain its monopoly even 
in the face of competition from potentially ``superior'' 
new rivals. In what manner do you believe the proposed settlement 
addresses the applications barrier?
    5. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from 
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors 
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because 
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed 
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters 
``competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate 
Court found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre- 
installing rival software. And second, it seems that software 
developers are more likely to write their programs to operate on 
Microsoft's middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware 
will always be on the computer whereas competing products may not 
be. Even if consumers are unaware that code is commingled, shouldn't 
we be concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is 
the upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, 
what concerns are raised by removing the code?
    6. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires 
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in 
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First, 
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality 
of civil antitrust remedies, i.e., that they don't aim to punish? 
And second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to 
dissuade other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of 
conduct in which Microsoft engaged?
    7. Nine states didn't join with the Department of Justice's 
proposed final judgment because they didn't believe it adequately 
addressed competitive problems. These states recently filed their 
own remedy proposals. These states assert that one fruit of 
Microsoft's illegal conduct is Microsoft's dominant share of the 
internet browser market. They propose to deny Microsoft this benefit 
of its violations by requiring it to open-source the code for 
Internet Explorer. What do you believe the competitive impact of 
such action would be?
    8. Given Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system, 
some believe that merely allowing computer manufacturers to place 
competing software and icons on the operating system will not impede 
Microsoft's

[[Page 30259]]

ability to capture a dominant share of any product that it binds to 
its operating system. Do you believe that media players, instant 
messaging services, and other competing products will be able to 
compete with similar MS products that are bound to the operating 
system?
    9. Many have criticized the proposed final judgment saying it 
has loopholes in it that will allow Microsoft to continue operating 
as it has done in the past. For example, the proposed final judgment 
clearly seeks to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against computer 
manufacturers that install competing software onto the computer. 
However, because the provisions are limited to specific practices or 
types of software, and apply only to ``agreements'' 
between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, many believe that 
Microsoft will find alternative methods of controlling the practices 
of computer manufacturers. Do you believe competition would be 
better served if Microsoft were broadly prohibited from retaliating 
against computer manufacturers?
    10. The Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft's practices which 
undermined the competitive threat of Sun's Java technology was an 
antitrust violation. The remedy proposed by the states that do not 
support the DOJ's proposed settlement would require Microsoft to 
distribute Java with its browser as a means of restoring Java's 
position in the market. Do you believe this would be beneficial to 
competition? What does the proposed final judgment do to restore 
this competition?
    11. Definition U. of the Proposed Final Judgment appears to 
allow Microsoft to determine in its sole discretion what constitutes 
the operating system. The Court of Appeals left open the possibility 
of a tying case against Microsoft. Will this provision essentially 
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against 
Microsoft? Why do you give Microsoft the ability to make this 
determination?
    12. It has been indicated that one motivation for entering into 
this settlement was to provide immediate relief and avoid lengthy 
court proceedings. At the same time, many of the provision of the 
settlement don't become active for up to 12 months after the 
settlement is enacted. Given your belief that relief should be 
immediate, why wait so long for these provisions to become active? 
13. One provision of the proposed final judgment requires Microsoft 
to allow consumers or computer manufacturers to enable access to 
competing products. However, it appears that III.H. of the 
Stipulation and VI.N. indicate that for a product to qualify for 
these protections it must have had a million copies distributed in 
the United States within the previous year. This seems to run 
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new 
competition. Is this in fact the case? And if so, why are these 
protections limited to larger competitors?

Senator DeWine's Questions for Charles F. Rule, Fried, Frank, Harris, 
Shriver & Jacobson, Counsel to Microsoft Corporation, Washington, 
DC

    1. Mr. Rule, in your testimony you have gone to great length to 
explain how certain portions of the government's case were dropped 
or thrown out during the course of litigation. Does Microsoft 
acknowledge that it violated the antitrust laws?
    2. Mr. Rule, many within the high tech industry have argued that 
the antitrust laws are overly cumbersome when it comes to promoting 
competition within the fast-changing industry. Is this Microsoft's 
position?
    3. Mr. Rule, what do you believe are the appropriate objectives 
of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you believe the 
case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition cases should 
be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases? Finally, do 
you believe this settlement fully achieves the appropriate remedy 
objectives? If not, in what ways is it deficient? And in what ways, 
if any, do you believe it reaches beyond the case?
    4. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from 
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors 
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because 
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed 
even if consumers don't want them. It seems to me that this deters 
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court 
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-installing 
rival software. And second, it seems that software developers are 
more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's 
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will always be 
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if 
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, shouldn't we be 
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the 
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what 
concerns are raised by removing the code?
    5. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires 
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in 
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First, 
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality 
of civil antitrust remedies, that they don't really aim to punish? 
And second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to 
dissuade other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of 
conduct in which Microsoft engaged?

IV. Senator DeWine's Questions for Professor Lawrence Lessig, Esq., 
Stanford Law School

    1. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an appropriate 
remedy should try and steer Microsoft toward developing its strategy 
in regards to the Internet. First, why wouldn't such an objective 
fall outside the clear confines of the case and thus be an 
inappropriate goal for a remedy? And second, given the fact that a 
court found Microsoft to have engaged in significant violations of 
the antitrust laws, should we be concerned about the company 
attempting to leverage its operating system monopoly to become 
dominant at the Internet level?
    2. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an integral 
part of the Court's conclusion was its finding that Microsoft had 
``commingled code'' in such a way as to interfere with the 
ability of competitors to compete on an even playing field. Do you 
believe the Justice Department's proposed final judgment adequately 
deals with this anticompetitive conduct?
    3. Mr. Lessig, you mention that there are problems with the 
proposed decree aside from enforcement. What are some of the other 
areas of concern?
    4. Mr. Lessig, what do you believe are the appropriate 
objectives of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you 
believe the case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition 
cases should be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases? 
Finally, do you believe this settlement fully achieves the 
appropriate remedy objectives? If not, in what way is it deficient?

V. Senator DeWine's Questions For Mark N. Cooper, Ph.D., Director of 
Research, Consumer Federation of America

    1. Mr. Cooper, many have stated that the alternative proposed 
remedies presented by the litigating states are not justifiable 
based on the conduct that the Appellate court found to be illegal. 
Do you agree? If not, how do you believe provisions such as 
requiting Microsoft to open source its browser code and provide 
multiple versions of its operating system relate to the conduct that 
was found to have been illegal?

VI. Senator DeWine's Questions For Jonathan Zuck, President, 
Association of Competitive Technology

    1. This case has obviously been very controversial and inspired 
a great deal of discussion regarding the effectiveness of the 
antitrust laws, especially within the hi-tech industry. Netscape, 
for example, vocally opposed Microsoft during this litigation, and 
many of Netscape's complaints were validated by the courts, and yet 
Netscape has essentially been defeated. That sort of result has led 
some to question whether the antitrust laws can be effective in this 
industry. What lesson do you believe this case teaches in that 
regard, and what do we say to Netscape?
    2. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from 
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors 
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because 
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed 
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters 
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court 
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre- 
installing rival software. And second, software developers are may 
be more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's 
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will always be 
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if 
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, should we be 
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the 
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what 
concerns are raised by removing the code? Further, what assurances 
can you give to this Committee that members of your organization 
will not merely choose to write to the Microsoft middleware, but 
will fully support competing products as well?

[[Page 30260]]

Senator DeWine's Questions For Matthew J. Szulik, President and Chief 
Operating Officer, Red Hat, Inc.

    1. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from 
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors 
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because 
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed 
even if consumers don't want them. This potentially deters 
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court 
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre- 
installing rival software. And second, software developers may be 
more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's 
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will always be 
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if 
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, should we be 
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the 
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what 
concerns are raised by removing the code?
    2. What impact do you believe the Proposed Final Judgment will 
have on the ability of competing operating systems, such as Linux, 
to gain traction in the market? Contrast this with the impact you 
believe a settlement proposal such as that offered by the litigating 
states would have.

VIII. Senator De Wine's Questions For Mitchell E, Kertzman, President 
and CEO, Liberate Technologies

    1. The Proposed Final Judgement aims to make the middleware 
market more competitive. Do you believe it is effective in doing so?
    2. Do you believe Microsoft will be able to leverage its 
monopoly in the PC operating system market to capture market share 
in other operating systems markets such as hand-held devices, 
navigation devices and servers? Does the proposed settlement address 
this issue at all, and do you believe the Appellate Court's ruling 
would permit a settlement that addresses these type of concerns?

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    I understand that the Justice Department officials, 
representatives of State Attorneys General, and Microsoft lawyers 
worked around the clock to come to an agreement on this settlement.
    A. How many meetings were there on the settlement?
    B. Were the states sufficiently involved in the process?
    C. Was there anyone in the room during those negotiations who 
was not affiliated with the parties to the litigation who may have 
been able to bring another perspective on the terms of the 
agreement?
    Now that we are in the 60 day period of the Tunney Act 
proceeding to determine the public interest aspects of this 
settlement, what, if any, role do you envision Congress should play?
    Microsoft is about to settle with about half the states who 
joined in the original DOJ lawsuit, but the other half of the states 
are continuing with the court-issued remedies phase of the 
litigation. Naturally, there may be differences in the remedies in 
the two different vehicles for closing out this case. How will you 
reconcile the potential differences between the terms of the 
settlement accepted by the nine settling state plaintiffs and the 
remedies to be awarded to the ten non-settling state plaintiffs?

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN TO MICROSOFT

    This is an unprecedented settlement for an unprecedented case. 
The entire world has been, and will continue to, watch every aspect 
of this case. They will also be watching to see if Microsoft 
complies with every word of this decree. Assuming this settlement is 
approved, can you outline the steps that will be taken to ensure 
compliance with the settlement? Are these steps unique in any way?
    What assurances can the American people have that Microsoft will 
really be constrained from future anti-competitive practices?

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN TO CONSUMER FEDERATION OF 
AMERICA

    In your mind, what are the most significant shortcomings of this 
settlement? What will this settlement enable Microsoft to do that 
you believe they should be prevented from doing?
    Our economy is currently in a recession and our country is at 
war. What are the compelling reasons for continuing this litigation 
against Microsoft rather than finding a way to settle?
    States that are continuing to pursue litigation want Microsoft 
to disclose source code for Web browsing functionality now in 
Windows. This would turn Microsoft's intellectual property into 
``open-source.''
    A. What are the ramifications to Microsoft and to its 
competitors if Microsoft is forced to subject its intellectual 
property to an open-source standard?
    g. In the future, what should competitors expect from companies 
that establish dominance in the technology marketplace?

Questions Submitted For the Record by Senator McConnell for Witness 
Charles James

    Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on The Microsoft 
Settlement
    Wednesday, December 12, 2001
    10:00 a.m.
    106 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Question: Can you describe how the appeals court ruling impacted 
the case originally brought by the Department of Justice in 1998?
    Question: Can you tell us more about how this agreement came 
about, or the process involved in reaching a settlement?
    Question: Some have criticized the agreement for not going far 
enough. Do you believe that the proposed settlement compares 
favorably to-and in some respects may well exceed-the remedy that 
might have emerged from a judicial hearing?
    Question: This litigation has been going on for almost 4 years. 
Will this settlement accelerate the point in time at which a remedy 
will begin to take effect?
    Question: Assuming the settlement is approved by the court, can 
you outline the steps that will be taken to ensure compliance with 
the settlement?
    Question: Are you aware of this type of enforcement mechanism 
being adopted in any other antitrust proceeding?
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Office of Legislative Affairs
    Office of the Assistant Attorney General
    January 24, 2002
    The Honorable Patrick Leahy
    Chairman
    Committee on the Judiciary
    United States Senate
    Washington, DC 20510
    Dear Mr. Chairman:
    Please find enclosed the answers to the written follow-up 
questions posed to Assistant Attorney General Charles James 
following his testimony before your Committee on December 12, 2001, 
on ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future.'' The 
Department appreciates the opportunity to provide its views to the 
Committee on this important topic.
    Of course, please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of 
any assistance on this or any other matter.
    Sincerely,
    Daniel J. Bryant
    Assistant Attorney General
    The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
    Ranking Minority Member

CHAIRMAN LEAHY'S QUESTIONS QUESTION

    Jim Barksdale, the former CE0 of Netscape, tells us in a written 
submission that if the proposed settlement had governed Microsoft's 
behavior ten years ago, he would never have been able to obtain the 
venture capital to launch Netscape and, even if it did, Microsoft 
would have been able to crush the company. It is harsh criticism of 
the proposed settlement that it would have made no difference and 
that it would allow Microsoft to engage in the same exclusionary 
practices that extinguished Netscape and crippled Java. Do you think 
that this criticism is fair and, if not, why?

ANSWER

    The Department disagrees with Mr. Barksdale's criticism. The 
essence of the criticism is that the prospects facing start-up firms 
promoting new software products would be greater if such companies 
could be guaranteed that they would not face competition from 
Microsoft Creating such an environment, however, is not one of the 
goals of public enforcement of the antitrust laws.
    More directly, Mr. Barksdale complains that the proposed Final 
Judgment fails to stop Microsoft from integrating new functions and 
capabilities into the Windows operating system The Department 
challenged Microsoft's integration of its browser into the operating 
system in its attempted monopolization and tying claims, neither of 
which was sustained by the Court. Contrary to Mr. Barksdale's view, 
the proposed Final Judgment does not create any new rights for 
Microsoft with regard to product integration. The proposed Final 
Judgment merely reflects the fact that, in light of the Court's 
ruling, there is no legal basis for enjoining Microsoft altogether 
from integrating middleware into its operating system, if that 
middleware is

[[Page 30261]]

removable and computer manufacturers and consumers are contractually 
free to remove it, as a remedy for the violations found in the case. 
Microsoft remains subject to the antitrust laws with respect to 
tying and in every other respect.
    Mr. Barksdale also makes the curious assertion that Netscape 
would have fared better without the proposed Final Judgment than 
with it. The proposed Final Judgment expressly prohibits the very 
practices Microsoft deployed to impede the emergence of Netscape's 
Web browser. Thus, had the decree been in effect, Netscape would 
have had access to Microsoft's APIs in the development process, been 
able to obtain distribution through computer manufacturers, and been 
able to become the default browser if a computer manufacturer or 
consumer elected to use Netscape in that way. Other firms in the 
industry would have been free to collaborate with Netscape without 
fear of retaliation by Microsoft.
    Most fundamentally, Mr. Barksdale apparently believes that 
Microsoft should be altogether prohibited from competing with start-
up firms like his former company. The Courts found that Microsoft 
engaged in specific practices that were unlawful under the antitrust 
laws. The proposed Final Judgment prohibits those unlawful acts, 
contains specific prohibitions to prevent their recurrence, and 
takes affirmative steps to restore the competitive conditions in the 
middleware marketplace. Consumers benefit from competition. The goal 
of the antitrust laws, therefore, is to protect competition, not to 
favor start-up firms over incumbents.

QUESTION

    The remedy filed by the non-settling States would require that 
the agreement be enforced by a court-appointed special master with 
the authority to monitor Microsoft's complaints, and with the power 
to investigate, call witnesses, and conduct hearings if the company 
appears to have violated the agreement. Your proposed settlement 
provides for a three- member panel paid for by Microsoft that can 
listen to and investigate complaints, but which lacks the 
independent authority to convene hearings and examine witnesses. 
This panel must turn to the Justice Department for any such 
activity, and its members may not offer testimony themselves in any 
proceeding. Although the three member panel might be helpful in 
gathering some information, in terms of actual enforcement, the 
Justice Department will have to start from scratch with any action. 
In light of the fact that everyone agrees that this is a rapidly-
moving industry, the inherent delays in such a process seem more 
likely to hamper than to enhance Microsoft's compliance with the 
decree. Why did you decide to create this unique and limited panel, 
rather than a more traditional special master?

ANSWER

    The Department believes that this and other Department antitrust 
final judgments can and should be enforced by the Department. 
Contrary, to the assumption underlying this question, there is no 
history or tradition of the Department delegating enforcement 
responsibility for its antitrust enforcement orders to third 
parties. Moreover, the Department believes that delegating 
enforcement authority to a special master in this particular case 
would have been misguided, possibly resulting in that individual 
becoming a one-person regulatory body, exercising de facto 
regulatory control over a broad range of behavior and conduct in the 
information technology sector, and setting antitrust enforcement 
policy in the process.
    The proposed Final Judgment ensures that the full force of the 
United States is available to enforce the judgment. The three-person 
compliance team was never intended to displace that enforcement 
authority. Rather, it is intended to facilitate enforcement through 
regular access to information and an affirmative obligation to 
report violations to the Department. Should the Department seek an 
enforcement action against Microsoft, it will not have to 
``start from scratch.'' The Department is not precluded 
from utilizing, relying on, or making derivative use of, the 
technical committee's work product, findings or recommendations in 
connection with any activities relating to enforcement of the 
proposed Final Judgment.
    Assuming that a special master would be required to afford 
individuals appropriate procedural protections and that its 
determinations would be subject to judicial review, the Department 
does not see any basis for assuming that enforcement by a special 
master would be more expeditious than enforcement by the Department. 
In fact, the Department believes that the very opposite would be 
true.

QUESTION

    The Court of Appeals specifically, held--twice--that 
commingling the browser and operating system code violated section 2 
of the Sherman Act. Yet, the proposed settlement contains no 
prohibition on commingling code. In your testimony before the 
Committee, you explained that the Department had never taken the 
position that Microsoft should be required to remove code from the 
operating system, and that the proposed settlement is thus 
consistent with a long-standing position of the Department. That 
explanation appears to neglect two things: First, the settlement is 
forward-looking, and second, the court's determination that 
commingling code was an exclusionary act. Taken together, these 
facts suggest that a ban on .future exclusionary commingling of code 
is entirely consistent with the Department's position, would provide 
appropriate relief for the violation found, and would help prevent 
its recurrence. Do you agree that such a ban on future exclusionary 
commingling would comport with the Court of Appeals decision? Did 
you consider such a ban? Do you agree that such a ban on future 
exclusionary commingling would provide appropriate relief for the 
violation found, and would help prevent its recurrence?

ANSWER

    The Department challenged Microsoft's practice of commingling 
operating system and browser code for the purpose of preventing the 
removal of its browser. The proposed Final Judgment fully addresses 
this conduct by requiring Microsoft to create and maintain an 
effective add/remove function for certain Microsoft middleware and 
to permit competing middleware to take on a ``default'' 
status that will override middleware functions Microsoft has 
integrated into the operating system The provisions, therefore, will 
stop the offending conduct and prevent its recurrence.
    Consistently throughout its discussion of the remedy in this 
case, the Department has maintained that it did not seek to require 
Microsoft to remove the commingled code. The Department does not 
read the Court of Appeals'' decision to state an affirmative 
rule of software design prohibiting all future commingling divorced 
from any adverse effect on competition. As the Court of Appeals 
noted, it is the use of the middleware product by the consumer, not 
the presence of the code, that has competitive significance. A ban 
on commingling without regard to competitive significance would 
impose a wholly unnecessary and artificial constraint on software 
design that could have adverse implications for consumers. 
Additionally, changes to the operating system required to implement 
such a prohibition likely would have adverse effects upon third 
parties that have already designed software to the present operating 
system code. A prohibition on commingling in this particular case, 
therefore, would be harmful, not helpful.

QUESTION

    There has never been a Tunney Act proceeding after litigation 
through the court of appeals before. In the first Microsoft-
Department of Justice Tunney Act proceeding in 1994, the court 
suggested that great deference should be given to the appellate 
court's findings. Do you believe that the Court of Appeals'' 
decision provides useful input to the definition of ``public 
interest'' in this unique context?

ANSWER

    The Department strictly adhered to the mandates within the Court 
of Appeals'' decision in fashioning the remedy contained within 
the proposed Final Judgment. Beyond the Department's position set 
forth in its submissions to the District Court in this matter, 
however, it would be inappropriate for the Department to comment on 
the appropriate scope of the Court's discretion because the Court's 
review of the proposed Final Judgment is pending under the Tunney 
Act

QUESTION

    5(a).
    As I mentioned at the Committee's hearing, in describing your 
settlement, Fortune magazine said ``Even the loopholes have 
loopholes.'' The settlement limits the types of retaliation 
Microsoft may take against PC manufacturers that want to carry or 
promote non-Microsoft software. By implication the settlement 
appears to give a green light to other types of retaliation. You 
responded to my question about retaliation by saying that the 
settlement would permit collaboration generally approved in the 
antitrust case law Please clarify the Department's position a little 
further. Why does the settlement not ban all types of retaliation?

[[Page 30262]]

ANSWER

    The term ``retaliation'' can be subject to overbroad 
interpretation in many contexts, including an antitrust final 
judgment. Literally, the term could be read to mean the withholding 
of any benefit in response to an undesired action. In a commercial 
context, a firm might be said to have ``retaliated'' 
against a prospective customer or supplier through any adverse 
action whether or not their interaction has any competitive 
significance. For example, if Microsoft decided for valid business 
reasons that it no longer wanted to engage in a particular business 
transaction, it could be accused of retaliating. To give the term 
retaliation meaning in the context of this proposed Final Judgment, 
reference must be made to the offending conduct, i.e., actions taken 
against firms seeking to develop, promote or distribute competing 
middleware.
    To amplify upon my answer at the hearing, the proposed Final 
Judgment does not, and should not, prohibit Microsoft from engaging 
in all forms of collaborative conduct Such a prohibition would be 
anticompetitive to the extent that some forms of collaboration 
Microsoft might engage in would help in the creation or distribution 
of new products for the benefit of consumers. The proposed Final 
Judgment prohibits Microsoft from withholding benefits from those 
who support competing middleware products, while permitting the 
company to grant benefits specifically in the context of bona fide 
collaborative ventures under well-established antitrust standards 
(which necessarily means ``withholding'' those same 
``benefits'' from companies not engaged in the particular 
bona fide collaborative venture).

QUESTION

    5(b)
    The settlement requires Microsoft to treat PC manufacturers the 
same in some respects but in other important respects Microsoft is 
allowed to treat PC manufacturers differently What are the ways in 
which Microsoft can treat differently PC manufacturers that carry 
competing software compared to those that agree to carry Microsoft 
products exclusively?

ANSWER

    Neither the antitrust laws generally, nor the Court of 
Appeals'' decision specifically, require that Microsoft, even 
as a monopolist, treat all third-parties equally. In fact, in many 
instances ``unequal'' treatment (e.g., collaboration 
between two companies that does not include other firms) evidences 
legitimate competition. Thus, the Department carefully crafted the 
proposed Final Judgment to ensure that it addresses the conduct 
found unlawful by the Court of Appeals without precluding conduct 
with potentially procompetitive effects.
    Section III.A. contains a broad ban on retaliation by Microsoft 
against computer manufacturers because they support competing 
middleware or operating system products. Microsoft is, however, 
permitted to provide consideration to a computer manufacturer for a 
particular Microsoft product or service where such consideration is 
commensurate with the level or amount of the computer manufacturer's 
development, distribution, promotion or licensing of that specific 
product or service. Thus, Microsoft can base such consideration only 
on the absolute level or amount of the computer manufacturer's 
support for the Microsoft product or service, rather than any 
relative level or amount that may serve to exclude rivals'' 
products. Section III.G 1. prohibits Microsoft from granting 
computer manufacturers and certain others consideration on the 
condition that they distribute, promote, use, or support exclusively 
or in a fixed percentage any Microsoft middleware or operating 
system. However, Microsoft is permitted to use fixed percentage 
arrangements where it is commercially practicable for the computer 
manufacturer or other entity to provide equal or greater support for 
software that competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating 
system. In addition, Microsoft may enter into bona fide joint 
ventures or joint development or joint services, ices arrangements 
with computer manufacturers and others for a new product, technology 
or service, in which both Microsoft and the computer manufacturer or 
other entity contribute significant developer or other resources, 
that prohibits such entity from competing with the object of the 
joint venture or other arrangement for a reasonable period of time.

QUESTION

    You referred at the hearing to the fact that the settlement 
would permit certain collaborative conduct between Microsoft and 
others. Please explain in detail what Types of collaboration are 
permitted by the decree, and what types are forbidden.

ANSWER

    It would be inappropriate for the Department to comment on the 
ability of Microsoft to engage in specific, hypothetical 
collaborations. More generally, however, in addition to the forms of 
collaboration described in response to question 5.(b). above, 
Section III.F. of the proposed Final Judgment prohibits Microsoft 
from entering into agreements with software vendors that condition 
the grant of any consideration on the vendor refraining from 
developing, using, distributing, or promoting a software that 
competes with Microsoft's middleware or operating system or any 
software that runs on any software that competes with Microsoft's 
middleware or operating system However, Microsoft may enter into 
agreements that place limitations on a software vendor's 
development, use, distribution, or promotion of any such software if 
those limitations are reasonably necessary to, and of reasonable 
scope and duration in relation to, a bona fide contractual 
obligation of the vendor to use, distribute, or promote any 
Microsoft software or to develop software for, or in conjunction 
with, Microsoft.

QUESTION

    Among the exceptions in the proposed settlement to the bans on 
retaliation, Microsoft is permitted to provide ``consideration 
to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft product or service where 
that consideration is commensurate with the absolute level or amount 
of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of 
that Microsoft product or service.'' This seems to permit 
Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they carry, Microsoft's 
products or software; this is just the flip side of 
``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing 
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands?

ANSWER

    Nothing in the antitrust laws generally or the Court of 
Appeals'' decision specifically requires that Microsoft be 
prohibited from competing in the market by working with computer 
manufacturers to promote its products and services. Indeed, it is 
hard to imagine how any such prohibition would benefit consumers. 
Instead, the proposed Final Judgment addresses that conduct found 
unlawful by the Court of Appeals and permits conduct that has 
potentially procompetitive effects. Allowing Microsoft to provide 
consideration based on a relative level or amount of support may 
serve to exclude rivals'' middleware products and, thus, is 
prohibited under the proposed Final Judgment. Whereas, allowing 
consideration based on the absolute level or amount of the computer 
manufacturer's support permits bona fide collaborations that may 
benefit consumers and are unlikely to exclude rivals. Thus, the 
proposed Final Judgment does not prohibit this conduct.

QUESTION

    In 1995, the Department and Microsoft entered into a Consent 
Decree. Two years later the Department sued Microsoft for contempt 
of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed over the 
meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of the 
Decree, including the meaning of the word ``integrate'' as 
that term was used in the Decree. Given the prior litigation between 
the Department and Microsoft over the proper interpretation of the 
1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that Microsoft and the Department 
should have a common, explicit understanding of the meaning and 
scope of this Final Judgment before it is entered?

ANSWER

    The Department's goal was to reach as clear a settlement 
agreement as possible in this case The proposed Final Judgment 
embodies the common, explicit understanding as to the settlement 
terms among the Department, the settling States and Microsoft,

QUESTION

    Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed Final 
Judgment as agreed upon by the Department and Microsoft should be 
precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the public at 
large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding of the 
Judgment?

ANSWER

    The Department's goal is to make final judgments as precise and 
unambiguous as possible. The mutual understanding among the 
Department, the settling States and Microsoft in this case is 
embodied in the proposed Final Judgment.

[[Page 30263]]

QUESTION

    If Microsoft were to disagree with the Department's 
interpretation of one or more important provisions of the proposed 
Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a potentially serious 
problem?

ANSWER

    Whether or not Microsoft's interpretation of one or more 
provisions of the proposed Final Judgment would be a serious problem 
would depend on the specific nature of the disagreement and the 
provisions of the Final Judgment that were implicated, among other 
things. It would be inappropriate for the Department to speculate on 
the seriousness of a hypothetical disagreement.

QUESTION

    Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify any 
significant disagreement between Microsoft and the Department over 
the correct interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment now, 
before the Judgment is entered by the Court, rather than through 
protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995 Consent Decree?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment embodies the complete agreement 
between the Department and Microsoft. The proposed Final Judgment in 
this case was entered through the standard procedures under which 
the Department settles antitrust cases. It is hard to imagine a 
mechanism under which understandings reached outside of those 
procedures would be enforceable.

QUESTION

    Does the Competitive Impact Statement set forth the Department's 
definitive interpretation of its proposed Final Judgment with 
Microsoft?

ANSWER

    The Tunney Act establishes the requirements for a Competitive 
Impact Statement. Pursuant to the Act, 15 U.S.C.  16, a 
Competitive Impact Statement provides:
    (1) the nature and purpose of the proceeding;
    (2) a description of the practices or events giving rise to the 
alleged violation of the antitrust laws;
    (3) an explanation of the proposal for a consent judgment, 
including an explanation of any unusual circumstances giving rise to 
such proposal or any provision contained therein, relief to be 
obtained thereby, and the anticipated effects on competition of such 
relief,
    (4) the remedies available to potential private plaintiffs 
damaged by the alleged violation in the event that such proposal for 
the consent judgment is entered in such proceeding;
    (5) a description of the procedures available for modification 
of such proposal; and
    (6) a description and evaluation of alternatives to such 
proposal actually considered by the United States.

QUESTION

    Has Microsoft informed the Department that it has any 
disagreement with the Department's interpretation of the Final 
Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?

ANSWER

    The Department is unaware of any disagreement that Microsoft may 
have with the Competitive Impact Statement.

QUESTION

    Can the public at large rely upon the Department's Competitive 
Impact Statement as the definitive interpretation of the nature and 
scope of Microsoft's obligations under the Final Judgment?

ANSWER

    As explained in response to Question 10 above, the Tunney Act 
establishes the requirements for a Competitive Impact Statement. 
Pursuant to the Act, 15 U.S C. 16, the Competitive 
Impact Statement provides the public and others with:
    (1) the nature and purpose of the proceeding;
    (2) a description of the practices or events giving rise to the 
alleged violation of the antitrust laws;
    (3) an explanation of the proposal for a consent judgment, 
including an explanation of any unusual circumstances giving rise to 
such proposal or any provision contained therein, relief to be 
obtained thereby, and the anticipated effects on competition of such 
relief,
    (4) the remedies available to potential private plaintiffs 
damaged by the alleged violation in the event that such proposal for 
the consent judgment is entered in such proceeding;
    (5) a description of the procedures available for modification 
of such proposal; and
    (6) a description and evaluation of alternatives to such 
proposal actually considered by the United States.

QUESTION

    If the public cannot rely on the Department's interpretation of 
the proposed Final Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact 
Statement, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-upon 
interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's obligations 
under the Final Judgment?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment itself embodies the mutually 
understood and agreed-upon settlement agreement among the 
Department, the settling States and Microsoft.

QUESTION

    The Tunney Act requires that Microsoft file with the district 
court ``any and all written or oral communications by or on 
behalf of [Microsoft]...with any officer or employee of the United 
States concerning or relevant to such proposal, except that any such 
communications made by counsel of record alone with the Attorney 
General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone shall be 
excluded from the requirements of this subsection.'' Microsoft 
has recently made its filing, and many have been surprised by its 
brevity. Do you believe that this provision requires disclosure of 
communications by Charles Rule to the Justice Department prior to 
the date upon which he became counsel of record? Do you believe it 
requires disclosure of contacts made on behalf of Microsoft to 
members of Congress? How does the Department define 
``concerning or relevant to'' the proposed settlement? Is 
that definition consistent across all Tunney Act proceedings? Do you 
believe that it covers anything more than the actual negotiations of 
the decree2

ANSWER

    Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  16(g), defendants must file a 
description of specified communications relating to the proposed 
settlement. These filings are made to the district court and are not 
evaluated or reviewed by the Department. It would inappropriate in 
this case for the Department to comment on Microsoft's 16(g) filing 
or interpret the requirements of the Tunney Act as they relate to 
its obligations.
    SENATOR HATCH'S QUESTIONS

QUESTION

    One of the principal concerns voiced by critics of the Proposed 
Settlement is that it lacks an effective enforcement mechanism. 
These critics suggest that some type of fast-track enforcement 
mechanism, such as the appointment of a special master, is 
necessary, to ensure compliance. Could you please explain: First, 
why you believe the enforcement avenues provided for by the Proposed 
Settlement are sufficient; and, Second, how you envision effective 
enforcement actually being carried out in the real world?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment contains one of the most stringent 
regimes of compliance ever contained in a final judgment entered by 
the Department. The proposed Final Judgment provides, as it should, 
for direct enforcement by the Department, supplemented by full-time, 
on-site monitoring by an expert compliance team, and a further 
penalty in the event of recurring violations. The Department 
believes that it has the resources, expertise, and, most 
importantly, the expert knowledge of the antitrust laws and the 
public interest focus to fully enforce the Final Judgment. Further, 
the Department sees no basis for the assertion that enforcement by a 
special master would be any more efficient, expeditious or effective 
than enforcement by the Department.
    A core team of experienced lawyers and economists established 
within our newly formed Networks & Technology Section, and 
including members of the litigation team, is charged with 
enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment. This enforcement team, 
assisted by the technical committee formed under the proposed Final 
Judgment, will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the Final 
Judgment and take any necessary, action, up to and including 
initiating contempt proceedings, to ensure effective enforcement.

QUESTION

    Because the three-person Technical Counsel created by the 
Proposed Settlement has no enforcement powers, won't the level

[[Page 30264]]

of enforcement of the Proposed Settlement depend principally on how 
proactive the Department and State Attorneys General are in 
dedicating resources and attention to prompt and effective oversight 
and enforcement? What resources does the Department plan on 
committing to enforcement of the Proposed Settlement?

ANSWER

    The Department believes that it should enforce the remedial 
orders entered in the cases it has prosecuted. We further believe 
that the Court is the appropriate forum in which to air disputes 
concerning enforcement of the Court's order. The Department does not 
delegate its enforcement responsibilities in antitrust matters to 
third parties We, therefore, specifically rejected the notion of 
granting enforcement authority to the technical committee that would 
have supplanted the enforcement power of the United States The 
proposed Final Judgment will be enforced by the skilled men and 
women of the Department's Antitrust Division. We are very proud of 
the work performed by the Division staff on this case, who worked 
tirelessly to secure the liability determinations upon which the 
proposed Final Judgment is premised. We, therefore, adamantly reject 
any assertion that the staff is not up to the task of enforcing this 
proposed Final Judgment. A core team of experienced lawyers and 
economists established within our newly formed Networks & 
Technology Section, and including members of the litigation team, is 
charged with enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment. This 
enforcement team, assisted by the technical committee formed under 
the proposed Final Judgment, will monitor Microsoft's compliance 
with the Final Judgment and take any necessary action, up to and 
including initiating contempt proceedings, to ensure effective 
enforcement

QUESTION

    In my opening statement, I raised the issue of prompt and 
effective enforcement in high-technology markets. As the DC Circuit 
clearly recognized, the passage of time frequently overtakes alleged 
anticompetitive actions, making them--in the DC Circuit's 
language--``obsolete'' before a remedy is devised and 
implemented. In ``our view, what can be done to minimize this 
problem and ensure that antitrust remedies are developed early 
enough to provide meaningful relief?

ANSWER

    The Department believes that the current antitrust laws are 
sufficient to guarantee not only competition, but timely, 
enforcement in high-tech areas, such as the software industry.

QUESTION

    Could you explain the pros and cons of having the enforcement 
function performed by governmental agencies as opposed to a special 
master or adjudicator)'' panel of some type?

ANSWER

    The Department believes that it should enforce the remedial 
orders entered in the cases it has prosecuted. The Department does 
not delegate that function to third parties in antitrust matters and 
believes that departing from that well-established policy would be 
particularly troublesome in this case. The Department has the 
necessary, resources, expertise and enforcement authority to carry 
out this function, just as it has in countless other cases. 
Moreover, the Department has the expert knowledge of the antitrust 
laws and the public interest focus required for this task. The 
proposed Final Judgment covers a broad range of competitive 
interaction between Microsoft and firms at every, level of the 
information technology industry. As is evident already, many in the 
industry see Microsoft's liability as a basis for demanding all 
manner of private rights, whether or not their demands have anything 
to do with the matters litigated in the case. Delegating actual 
enforcement power to any third party in this case would have been 
misguided, possibly resulting in that individual becoming a de facto 
regulatory body, exercising broad control over the information 
technology sector, and doing so without the legal framework that 
ordinarily would be imposed upon such a scheme. The Microsoft case 
is a public law enforcement matter. The Department believes that 
enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment should rest with the 
public agency charged with that function. The Department also has 
complete confidence in the Court to act expeditiously and to enter 
orders enforcing the proposed Final Judgment as appropriate.

QUESTION

    Could you also explain why you oppose--assuming that you do 
oppose--an alternate or additional enforcement mechanism?

ANSWER

    The enforcement mechanism contained in the proposed Final 
Judgment will effectively ensure Microsoft's timely compliance with 
the judgment. An alternate or additional enforcement mechanism is 
unnecessary.

QUESTION

    As you know, I believe that one important aspect of the Internet 
is the freedom that consumers have to choose where to go and what 
websites to visit. Currently, consumers can choose to go to whatever 
websites they want. Commentators and industry participants argue 
that there is a legitimate fear that an Internet mediator 
might--for one reason or another--decide to limit access 
to certain sites while traffic is directed to other sites, or decide 
that certain sites will be treated differently than other sites in 
ways that push consumers in the direction of favored sites instead 
of leaving the choice entirely and fairly to consumers. Who do you 
believe should choose where a consumer can go online, the consumer 
or the Internet mediator, be it an Internet service provider, a 
software company, or a cable or satellite company? ,Also, could you 
please explain whether and why you believe this is an important 
competition policy concern?

ANSWER

    The mission of the Department is to enforce the federal 
antitrust laws. The Department would evaluate any conduct by firms 
in the computer industry, including Internet mediators, that harms 
consumers and may violate the antitrust laws. The Department does 
not, however, have a view in the abstract as to who should decide 
where a consumer can go online.

QUESTION

    Some critics claim that the only real penalty Microsoft faces 
for violating the Proposed Settlement is the extension of the terms 
of the Settlement for two additional years Is that an accurate 
criticism; and, if not, could you please briefly explain the 
penalties faced by Microsoft if it fails to abide by the Proposed 
Settlement?

ANSWER

    The Department fundamentally disagrees with this criticism. In 
addition to seeking the penalty of extending the proposed Final 
Judgment term for an additional two years, the Department has all of 
the enforcement powers available to it under federal law, including 
criminal or civil contempt proceedings, petitions for injunctive 
relief to halt or prevent violations, motions for declarator-
3'' judgment to clarify or interpret particular provisions, and 
motions to modify the proposed Final Judgment.

QUESTION

    Could you please expand on why you believe the Department has 
sufficient expertise to accurately evaluate the competitive 
implications of software design and other technical development 
choices? Additionally, specifically what has the Department done to 
ensure that it has the expertise necessary to assess at an early 
stage both the lawfulness and potential anticompetitive effects of 
highly-technical actions taken by companies such as Microsoft? Does 
the Department have a specific plan for allocating resources or 
personnel to develop the necessary'' expertise to identify and 
take effective action while potential antitrust problems are still 
on the horizon?

ANSWER

    The Department has both the resources and capability to address 
such technical issues, as they affect enforcement matters, through 
internal means and, where appropriate, the retention of outside 
experts. The Department has staff attorneys and economists, 
including members of the staff that worked tirelessly on the 
Microsoft case for many years, who have significant technical 
expertise in the software industry, as well as other high-tech 
fields. The Department routinely investigates, and relies on the 
expertise of its personnel to assess the effects of, 
companies'' conduct in these high-tech industries. The 
Department continuously evaluates and seeks to improve its expertise 
to allow it to identify and take effective action to address 
competitive issues.

QUESTION

    In his written testimony (pp. 18-19), Mr. Himes of the New 
York State Attome3'' General's Office briefly discusses the 
importance of the Proposed Settlement's definition of 
``Middleware.'' The D.C Circuit defined middleware very 
simply as ``software products that expose their own APIs [or 
``Application Programming Interfaces']. Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 
53. Could you explain why the Proposed Settlement adopts a

[[Page 30265]]

narrower, two prong definition? Could you also further explain the 
distribution threshold contained in the definition of ``Non-
Microsoft Middleware Products,'' requiring that--to meet 
the definition--at least one million copies of the Middleware 
Product have been distributed within the United States during the 
previous 3'ear? Will this threshold provision disadvantage 
innovation among start-up entrepreneurs or those who develop 
software for highly-specialized markets as some have criticized? Is 
there some other way to address the concerns underlying this 
``one million copy'' threshold?

ANSWER

    The Court of Appeals'' decision did not seek to define the 
term middleware in a manner that would suffice for remedial 
purposes. Rather, the opinion contains descriptive language to aid 
in the exposition of the issues in the case For remedial purposes, 
the definition must be more technical so as to ensure limits within 
the terms of the liability found and enforceability of the proposed 
Final Judgment. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft engaged in 
anticompetitive practices with respect to two middleware products, 
Web browsers and Java. Those products were deemed to have exposed a 
range of APIs so as to have the potential to evolve into an 
alternate platform, thereby threatening Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly. Not all products that expose APIs have that quality. The 
proposed Final Judgment adopts a broad definition of middleware that 
includes the specific products at issue in this case, other specific 
products that already have emerged as potential alternative 
platforms, and products that may be developed in the future that may 
have similar cross-platform qualities. Under the proposed Final 
Judgment, a computer manufacturer will have the right to install any 
competing middleware application, without regard to the number of 
copies of that competing middleware that have been distributed. The 
one million copy limitation exists only with respect to the 
requirements that Microsoft make public the APIs used in its own 
middleware products and redesign the operating system to provide a 
competing middleware product ``default'' 
status--i.e., the ability to override automatically Microsoft 
middleware functions integrated into the operating system The 
limitation strikes the proper balance between the substantial costs 
associated with such documentation and redesign efforts, and the 
competitive potential of products with fewer than one million copies 
distributed. To do otherwise would have put the operating system in 
a state of constant flux, which would have had disastrous 
implications for users and developers alike. Moreover, in a world of 
about 625 million PC users and software distribution via downloads 
and direct mail, distribution of only one million copies, rather 
than sales, installation or usage, is a relatively minor threshold 
in the software industry today. As you know, Americans routinely 
receive unsolicited software offers via the mail every day.

QUESTION

    I found Mr. Jim Barksdale's letter noteworthy in several 
respects, but am particularly interested in his claim that the 
Proposed Settlement would not have prevented Microsoft's unlawful 
actions against Netscape. Could you please discuss whether the 
Proposed Settlement would have prevented the actions taken by 
Microsoft against Netscape that the DC Circuit held to be unlawful 
had the Proposed Settlement been in existence in 1995, and, if so, 
how?

ANSWER

    Mr. Barksdale makes the curious assertion that Netscape would 
have fared better without the proposed Final Judgment than with it. 
The proposed Final Judgment expressly prohibits the very practices 
Microsoft deployed to impede the emergence of Netscape's Navigator 
and found unlawful by the Court of Appeals, Thus, had the Final 
Judgment been in effect, Netscape would have had access to 
Microsoft's APIs in the development process, been able to obtain 
distribution through computer manufacturers, and been able to become 
the default browser if a computer manufacturer or consumer elected 
to use Netscape in that way. Other firms in the industry would have 
been free to collaborate with Netscape without fear of retaliation 
by Microsoft
    SENATOR DEWINE'S QUESTIONS

QUESTION

    The term of the proposed settlement is only five years, while 
many other antitrust consent decrees last for ten years. The 
Department has suggested that a shorter time period is justified 
because this industry changes rapidly and a longer decree may not be 
warranted after five years. Given that the Department of Justice has 
the ability to go to the court and seek to modify a consent decree 
or terminate it if market conditions warrant such a change, why not 
impose a longer period of enforcement, and then decide later if it 
needs to be modified or abandoned?

ANSWER

    The mission of the Department is to enforce the federal 
antitrust laws and remedy specific violations thereof This mission 
does not include regulating competition. Entering into an open-ended 
final judgment with the intent of reevaluating its terms on a going-
forward basis would be contrary to the Department's mission.

QUESTION

    As the Court of Appeals in this case noted, the Supreme Court 
has indicated that a remedies decree in an antitrust case must seek 
to ``unfetter a market from anticompetitive conduct,'' 
``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.'' 
Do you believe that this is the appropriate standard to use? If so, 
do you believe the proposed final judgment denies Microsoft the 
fruits of its illegal acts? Specifically, can you discuss whether 
Microsoft has been denied the fruits of its effort to maintain a 
monopoly in the operating system'?.

ANSWER

    In agreeing to the proposed Final Judgment, the Department 
followed the Court of Appeals'' decision in this case and 
applicable precedent. The Court of Appeals determined that Microsoft 
had illegally maintained its operating system monopoly by engaging 
in specific anticompetitive practices. While some have argued that 
the ``fruits'' of this violation are the continued 
monopoly in the operating system market and/or a monopoly in the Web 
browser market, that is inconsistent with the Court of 
Appeals'' decision. In discussing the scope of an appropriate 
remedy, the Court of Appeals noted, ``the District Court 
expressly did not adopt the position that Microsoft would have lost 
its position in the OS market but for its anticompetitive 
behavior.'' U.S. v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 107 (DC Cir. 2001). 
Further, the Court reversed the District Court's findings that 
Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the Web browser market and 
engaged in illegal tying. Consequently, there was no mandate for the 
Department to strip Microsoft of its market position in either the 
operating system or Web browser markets.
    The proposed Final Judgment denies Microsoft the ability to use 
its operating system monopoly to exclude competing middleware 
products. In addition to prohibiting the illegal practices, 
Microsoft is now required to provide to actual and potential 
competitors APIs never before disclosed to them. Microsoft also must 
make design changes that permit competing middleware to substitute 
as the default product. Finally, Microsoft must now disclose to 
competitors communications protocols for servers. These proactive 
provisions create a far more positive environment for the 
development of competing middleware than existed at the time of 
Microsoft's unlawful behavior. In this environment, software 
developers will have a full opportunity to compete for consumer 
patronage that might make them an actual threat to Microsoft's 
operating system monopoly.

QUESTION

    The proposed settlement has some prohibitions against Microsoft 
retaliating against computer manufacturers that place competing 
software on their computers-these provisions are intended to allow 
manufacturers to offer non-Microsoft products if they choose. I 
understand that Microsoft currently offers incentives to computer 
manufacturers if they can get computers to ``boot up'' 
quickly. Some believe that computer manufacturers will not want to 
slow down the start-up time by placing additional software on the 
computer because they, will risk losing the incentive payment. Does 
the proposed settlement deal with this problem?

ANSWER

    The Court of Appeals decision in this case did not specifically 
address the speed at which computers ``boot up.'' Nor does 
the proposed Final Judgment. However, the proposed Final Judgment 
does prohibit Microsoft from using market development allowances or 
other discounts if they are inconsistent with any other provision in 
the proposed Final Judgment. This would include, for example, 
retaliation against computer manufacturers for using non-Microsoft 
middleware implemented through incentive payments for faster 
``boot ups.''

[[Page 30266]]

QUESTION

    The Appellate Court noted that the applications barrier protects 
Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Court stated that this 
allows Microsoft the ability to maintain its monopoly even in the 
face of competition from potentially ``superior'' new 
rivals. In what manner do you believe the proposed settlement 
addresses the applications barrier?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment addresses the applications barrier 
by restoring the nascent competitive threat to Microsoft's operating 
system posed by middleware products. Middleware products expose 
their own APIs, and thus, allow software developers to write 
programs that run on the middleware itself. An application written 
to rely exclusively on a middleware program's interfaces could run 
on all operating systems on which that middleware runs. Because such 
middleware also runs on Windows, applications developers would not 
be required to sacrifice Windows compatibility if they choose to 
write applications for a middleware platform. Applications 
developers would thus have incentives to write for widely used 
middleware, and users would not be reluctant to choose a non-Windows 
operating system for fear that it would run an insufficient array of 
applications
    In addition to prohibiting the illegal practices, Microsoft is 
now required to provide to actual and potential competitors APIs 
never before disclosed to them. Microsoft also must make design 
changes that permit competing middleware to substitute as the 
default product. Finally, Microsoft must now disclose to competitors 
communications protocols for servers. These proactive provisions 
create a far more positive environment for the development of 
competing middleware than existed at the time of Microsoft's 
unlawful behavior. In this environment, software developers will 
have a full opportunity to compete for consumer patronage that might 
make them an actual threat to Microsoft's operating system monopoly.

QUESTION

    Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from commingling 
operating system code with middleware code, competitors will not be 
able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because the code is 
commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed even if 
consumers don't want them. This potentially deters competition in at 
least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court found, commingling 
deters computer manufacturers from pre-installing rival software. 
And second, it seems that software developers are more likely to 
write their programs to operate on Microsoft's middleware if they 
know that the Microsoft middleware will always be on the computer 
whereas competing products may not be. Even if consumers are unaware 
that code is commingled, should we be concerned about the market 
impact of commingling code? What is the upside of allowing it to be 
commingled, and on the other hand, what concerns are raised by 
removing the code?

ANSWER

    The Court of Appeals concluded that Microsoft unlawfully 
commingled its operating system and browser code for the purpose of 
preventing the removal of its browser. The Court found that this had 
the effect of deterring competition not because of the presence of 
the Microsoft middleware code, but because of the use of the 
middleware by consumers. The proposed Final Judgment fully addresses 
the conduct found unlawful by requiring Microsoft to create and 
maintain an effective add/remove function for all Microsoft 
middleware and to permit competing middleware to take on a 
``default'' status that will override middleware functions 
Microsoft has integrated into the operating system.
    A ban on commingling without regard to competitive significance 
would impose a wholly unnecessar5, and artificial constraint on 
software design that could have adverse implications for consumers. 
Additionally, changes to the operating system required to implement 
such a prohibition likely would have adverse effects upon third 
parties that have already designed software to the present operating 
system code. A prohibition on commingling in this particular case, 
therefore, would be harmful, not helpful.

QUESTION

    Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires 
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in 
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts First, how 
would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality of 
civil antitrust remedies, i.e., that they don't aim to punish? And 
second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to dissuade 
other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of conduct in 
which Microsoft engaged?

ANSWER

    It is true that by statute and applicable Supreme Court 
precedent, there is no legal basis for ``punishing'' a 
civil defendant in a civil antitrust decree. Thus, for example, the 
Department cannot impose a civil fine. In agreeing to the proposed 
Final Judgment, the Department followed the Court of Appeals'' 
decision in this case and applicable precedent The Court of Appeals 
determined that Microsoft had illegally maintained its operating 
system monopoly by engaging in a series of specific anticompetitive 
practices While some have argued that the ``fruits'' of 
this violation are the continued monopoly in the operating system 
market and/or a monopoly in the Web browser market, that is 
inconsistent with the Court of Appeals'' decision. In 
discussing the scope of an appropriate remedy, the Court of Appeals 
noted, ``the District Court expressly did not adopt the 
position that Microsoft would have lost its position in the OS 
market but for its anticompetitive behavior.'' U.S. v. 
Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 107 (DC Cir 2001). Further, the Court 
reversed the District Court's findings that Microsoft had attempted 
to monopolize the Web browser market and engaged in illegal tying. 
Consequently, there was no mandate for the Department to strip 
Microsoft of its market position in either the operating system or 
Web browser markets. The proposed Final Judgment does, however, stop 
the unlawful conduct found by the Court of Appeals, prevent its 
recurrence and restore the competitive conditions in the middleware 
market. The Department believes that the proposed remedy in this 
case is strong enough to deter others firms who may engage in the 
type of unlawful conduct in which Microsoft engaged

QUESTION

    Nine states didn't join with the Department of Justice's 
proposed final judgment because the, didn't believe it adequately 
addressed competitive problems. These states recently filed their 
own remedy proposals. These states assert that one fruit of 
Microsoft's illegal conduct is Microsoft's dominant share of the 
Internet browser market. They propose to deny Microsoft this benefit 
of its violations by requiring it to open-source the code for 
Internet Explorer. What do you believe the competitive impact of 
such action would be?

ANSWER

    The credibility of the antitrust enforcement process requires 
the Department to respect the Court's rulings in this case, 
including those that were adverse. The Department was unsuccessful 
with regard to some of its claims. It would be inappropriate for the 
Department to seek remedies designed to redress claims upon which it 
was unsuccessful under the guise of claims actually sustained by the 
Court.
    The sole basis for liability sustained by the Court of Appeals 
was monopoly maintenance The monopoly maintenance claim asserted 
that Microsoft impeded a ``nascent'' threat to its 
operating system monopoly. The Department conceded, and the courts 
found, that any actual effect of that conduct on competition in the 
operating system market would have occurred well off into the 
future, if at all. The courts rejected both the exclusive dealing 
and attempted monopolization counts, and reversed the finding of 
unlawful tying. In fact, the Court of Appeals found that the 
Plaintiffs failed to prove that Web browsers were even a distinct 
market. Those were the only government claims asserting 
anticompetitive impact or unlawful gain to Microsoft in the market 
for Web browsers. Thus, within the confines of this case, there is 
no legal basis for asserting that Microsoft's present share in 
browsers is a ``fruit'' of its unlawful conduct, and a 
remedy requiring disclosure of the source code for Microsoft's 
browser, therefore, would be an unfounded expropriation of 
Microsoft's intellectual property.
    It is not a goal of public antitrust enforcement to restructure 
competitive relationships or to secure competitive benefits for 
private firms, divorced from a finding of unlawful behavior. Such 
action by the Department would be a distortion of the antitrust 
enforcement process that would undermine the very goals of the 
antitrust laws.

QUESTION

    Given Microsoft's monopoly power in the operating system, some 
believe that merely allowing computer manufacturers to place 
competing software and icons on the operating system will not impede 
Microsoft's ability to capture a dominant share of any

[[Page 30267]]

product that it binds to its operating system. Do you believe that 
media players, instant messaging services, and other competing 
products will be able to compete with similar MS products that are 
bound to the operating system?

ANSWER

    There are, today, media players and instant messaging services 
that compete with similar Microsoft products. The proposed Final 
Judgment ensures that competing middleware products, such as media 
players and instant messaging software, will have the opportunity to 
compete with Microsoft's products. Specifically, the proposed Final 
Judgment prohibits Microsoft from impeding consumer choice of 
competing middleware products by requiring Microsoft to create and 
maintain a mechanism for consumers and computer manufacturers to 
replace Microsoft's middleware In this way, the proposed Final 
Judgment preserves and reinforces the notion of consumer choice. It 
permits consumers to choose between Microsoft and non-Microsoft 
middleware and to configure their desktops accordingly.
    The proposed Final Judgment provides the opportunity for 
middleware products to compete on the competitive merits. If 
developers of competing middleware products can generate consumer 
patronage by offering superior products at attractive prices, 
consumers (and/or the OEMs they purchase from) will select their 
products over those offered by Microsoft. Consistent with the goals 
of the antitrust laws, however, the proposed Final Judgment provides 
the opportunity for the competitive process to determine how well 
competing middleware producers fare in the marketplace.

QUESTION

    Many have criticized the proposed final judgment saying it has 
loopholes in it that will allow Microsoft to continue operating as 
it has done in the past. For example, the proposed final judgment 
clearly seeks to prevent Microsoft from retaliating against computer 
manufacturers that install competing software onto the computer. 
However, because the provisions are limited to specific practices or 
types of software, and apply only to ``agreements'' 
between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, many believe that 
Microsoft will find alternative methods of controlling the practices 
of computer manufacturers. Do you believe competition would be 
better served if Microsoft were broadly prohibited from retaliating 
against computer manufacturers'7

ANSWER

    The term ``retaliation'' can be subject to overbroad 
interpretation in many contexts, including an antitrust final 
judgment. Literally, the term could be read to mean the withholding 
of any benefit in response to an undesired action. In a commercial 
context, a firm might be said to have ``retaliated'' 
against a prospective customer or supplier through an adverse action 
whether or not their interaction has an5'' competitive 
significance For example, if Microsoft decided for valid business 
reasons that it no longer wanted to engage in a particular business 
transaction, it could be accused of retaliating. To give the term 
retaliation meaning in the context of this proposed Final Judgment, 
reference must be made to the offending conduct, i.e., actions taken 
against firms seeking to develop, promote or distribute competing 
middleware.
    To amplif3'' upon my answer at the hearing, the proposed 
Final Judgment does not, and should not, prohibit Microsoft from 
engaging in all forms of collaborative conduct Such a prohibition 
would be anticompetitive to the extent that some forms of 
collaboration Microsoft might engage in would help in the creation 
or distribution of new products for the benefit of consumers. The 
proposed Final Judgment prohibits Microsoft from withholding 
benefits from those who support competing middleware products, while 
permitting the company to grant benefits specifically in the context 
of bona fide collaborative ventures under well-established antitrust 
standards (which necessarily means ``withholding'' those 
same ``benefits'' from companies not engaged in the 
particular bona fide collaborative venture).

QUESTION

    The Court of Appeals ruled that Microsoft's practices which 
undermined the competitive threat of Sun's Java technology was an 
antitrust violation. The remedy proposed by the states that do not 
support the DOJ's proposed settlement would require Microsoft to 
distribute Java with its browser as a means of restoring Java's 
position in the market. Do you believe this would be beneficial to 
competition? What does the DOJ's proposed settlement do to restore 
this competition?

ANSWER

    As a public antitrust enforcement mechanism, the proposed Final 
Judgment does not seek to confer specific strategic or financial 
benefits upon specific companies Indeed, the antitrust laws 
specifically leave it to private parties to secure that form of 
relief in private antitrust actions they file on their own behalf, 
and many companies have availed themselves of that opportunity. The 
proposed Final Judgment, however, addresses, with respect to all 
middleware producers, including Sun Microsystems'' Java, the 
conduct that the Court of Appeals found to have impeded the 
development and distribution of Java Having eliminated the unlawful 
practices, the proposed Final Judgment will allow Sun to compete for 
consumer patronage against any similar technology Microsoft might 
elect to offer. It would be inappropriate for the Department to 
dictate through government mandate consumer choice of a particular 
middleware product. Consumer choice, not government decree, should 
determine the market result. Requiring Microsoft to distribute Java 
with every Microsoft browser would not restore competition to its 
previous form; rather, it would give Java a competitive advantage 
over other firms'' products.

QUESTION

    Definition U. of the Proposed Final Judgment appears to allow 
Microsoft to determine in its sole discretion what constitutes the 
operating system. The Court of Appeals left open the possibility of 
a tying case against Microsoft. Will this provision essentially 
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against 
Microsoft? Why do you give Microsoft the ability to make this 
determination?

ANSWER

    Definition U. in the proposed Final Judgment ,,,,,ill not 
foreclose any opportunity of bringing a tying claim against 
Microsoft. The definition applies only to the duties and obligations 
imposed on Microsoft by the proposed Final Judgment. Although the 
proposed Final Judgment does not prohibit Microsoft from tying its 
products, it does not grant Microsoft any new rights under the 
antitrust laws with respect to product integration.
    The Department agreed to include this clause in Definition U. 
because it merely confirms what Microsoft already had the power to 
do--label its own operating system products. This clause does 
not negatively impact the operative provisions of the proposed Final 
Judgment because they principally rely on other definitions, such as 
Microsoft Middleware Product, regardless of how Microsoft labels its 
operating system. Moreover, the clause does not affect whether 
software that Microsoft chooses to label as part of the package it 
calls its ``Windows Operating System Product'' is or is 
not a separate ``product'' for antitrust purposes.

QUESTION

    Many antitrust cases involve the appointment of a special master 
who has some level of enforcement authorit3,. This proposed final 
judgment does not do that and instead relies primarily upon standard 
civil and criminal contempt proceedings, as well as a special three 
person panel. Why has the Division elected not to appoint a special 
master that may speed effective enforcement, especially given the 
Division's concern for how rapidly this market changes?

ANSWER

    Contrary to the premise of the question, there is no history or 
tradition of the Department delegating enforcement responsibility 
for its antitrust enforcement orders to special masters. The 
Department is the public agency entrusted to carry out that function 
and has the resources, expertise and public interest focus necessary 
to accomplish the task. Moreover, the Department disagrees 
fundamentally with the notion that enforcement of the proposed Final 
Judgment by a special master would be more efficient or expeditious 
in this case. Assuming that the resolution of disputes by a special 
master would involve reasonable procedural protections for all 
concerned, including a right of judicial appeal, there is no reason 
to believe that the special master process would be any less 
litigious or time-consuming than enforcement by the Department in 
this case, and may in fact introduce even more delay into the 
enforcement process.

QUESTION

    The Department of Justice has indicated that one motivation for 
entering into this settlement was to provide immediate relief and 
avoid lengthy court proceedings. At the same time, many of the 
provisions of the settlement don't become active for up to 12 months 
after the settlement is enacted. Given

[[Page 30268]]

your belief that relief should be immediate, why wait so long for 
these provisions to become active?

ANSWER

    The only provisions in the proposed Final Judgment that do not 
require Microsoft to immediately abide by their terms once the Final 
Judgment is in effect are Sections III.D., III.E., and III.H. These 
provisions provide Microsoft with a limited amount of time to 
implement the company's affirmative obligations because they require 
Microsoft to actually redesign its products or establish new 
disclosure procedures that will take time to accomplish. In 
addition, requiring Microsoft to immediately disclose the unfinished 
interfaces for its new products in development in Section III.D. 
would actually be detrimental to the market because Microsoft 
continuously, changes and improves these interfaces before a product 
is finalized. Ira software developer uses interfaces disclosed to it 
in its products and the interfaces are subsequently modified, this 
may disable both the software product and the operating system. 
Giving Microsoft a limited amount of time to implement its duties 
under these provisions ensures that they are properly, implemented

QUESTION

    One provision of the proposed final judgment requires Microsoft 
to allow consumers or computer manufacturers to enable access to 
competing products. However, it appears that III.H. of the 
Stipulation and VI.N. indicate that for a product to qualify for 
these protections it must have had a million copies distributed in 
the United States within the previous year. This seems to run 
contrary to the traditional antitrust philosophy of promoting new 
competition. Is this in fact the case? And if so, why are these 
protections limited to larger competitors?

ANSWER

    Under the proposed Final Judgment, a computer manufacturer will 
have the right to install any competing middleware application, 
without regard to the number of copies of that competing middleware 
that have been distributed. The one million cop, limitation exists 
only with respect to the requirements that Microsoft make public the 
APIs used in its own middleware products and redesign the operating 
system to provide a competing middleware product 
``default'' status--i.e., the ability to override 
automatically Microsoft middleware functions integrated into the 
operating system This limitation strikes the proper balance between 
the substantial costs associated with such documentation and 
redesign efforts, and the competitive potential of products with 
fewer than one million copies distributed. To do otherwise would 
have put the operating system in a state of constant flux, which 
would have had disastrous implications for users and developers 
alike. Moreover, in a world of about 625 million PC users and 
software distribution via downloads and direct mail, distribution of 
only one million copies, rather than sales, installation or usage, 
is a relatively minor threshold in the software industry today As 
you know, Americans routinely receive unsolicited software offers 
via the mail eye%, day.
    SENATOR MCCONNELL'S QUESTIONS

QUESTION

    Can you describe how the appeals court ruling impacted the case 
originally brought by the Department of Justice in 19987

ANSWER

    Not only the Court of Appeals'' ruling, but also the trial 
court's earlier determinations disposing of alternative theories of 
antitrust liability advanced by the Department of Justice and the 
State plaintiffs, significantly impacted the Microsoft case. The 
federal government's complaint alleged four specific antitrust 
violations: (1) attempted monopolization of the browser market in 
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (2) specific 
anticompetitive acts, and a course of conduct, to maintain the 
operating system monopoly, also in violation of Section 2; (3) 
unlawfully tying the Web browser to the operating system in 
violation of Section 1; and (4) exclusive dealing in violation of 
Section 1. Additionally, the State plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft 
employed unlawful monopoly leveraging tactics to move into the 
browser market in violation of Section 2 and monopolization with 
respect to Microsoft Office. The District Court, however, dismissed 
the monopoly leveraging claim prior to trial, and the States 
unilaterally dropped their monopolization claim with regard to 
Microsoft Office. Following a trial, the District Court ruled for 
the government on three of the four claimed violations, but against 
it on the exclusive dealing claim. To remedy the violations, the 
Court ordered that Microsoft be divided into separate operating 
system and applications software businesses, following a one-year 
transitional period under interim conduct restrictions.
    The Court of Appeals reversed the liability findings with regard 
to attempted monopolization and tying, dismissing the former and 
remanding the latter for further proceedings under a more rigorous 
standard of proof It sustained the finding of monopoly maintenance, 
but did so on more limited grounds. Specifically, it reversed the 
District Court's finding of a course of conduct, limiting liability 
to specific anticompetitive acts, and with regard to the specific 
acts, ruled against the government on 8 of the 20 anticompetitive 
acts sustained by the District Court that the Court of Appeals 
considered. The Court of Appeals also vacated the remedy, in part 
because it had so ``drastically'' curtailed the liability 
determinations. In discussing the remedy, the Court expressed 
substantial skepticism about the propriety of structural relief in 
this case and instructed the new judge to tailor the remedy to the 
violations affirmed.
    The net effect of the District Court's and Court of 
Appeals'' rulings was to substantially narrow both the findings 
of liability and the bases for relief The courts ruled against the 
government with regard to both direct assaults on Microsoft's 
practice of integrating new functions into the operating system (the 
attempted monopolization and tying claims) and Microsoft's ability 
to use the advantages flowing from the operating system monopoly to 
enter new markets (the States'' monopoly leveraging claim). The 
sole basis for relief became Microsoft's specific 
practices--not a course of conduct--to maintain the 
operating system monopoly by impeding the development and deployment 
of middleware products. The relief in the proposed Final Judgment 
effectively addresses these practices by stopping them, preventing 
their recurrence and restoring the competitive conditions lost due 
to Microsoft's violations.

QUESTION

    Can you tell us more about how this agreement came about, or the 
process involved in reaching a settlement?

ANSWER

    Particularly while Tunney Act review, of the proposed Final 
Judgment is pending, it would be inappropriate to discuss the 
details of the settlement process. However, the Department can 
provide the following general information. On September 28, 2001, 
Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered the parties into a period of intensive 
settlement and mediation discussions to attempt to reach a fair 
resolution of the case, commencing on September 28, and expiring on 
November 2, 2001, staying all other case activity during that 
period. During those five weeks, the Department, certain 
representatives for the States, and Microsoft extended every effort 
to comply with the Court's order, first privately, and then with 
assistance from the mediator appointed by the Court and his partner. 
After extensive negotiations, the Department, nine of the Plaintiff 
States and Microsoft were able to agree upon a proposed Final 
Judgment that would fully, meet the Department's goal of achieving a 
prompt, certain and effective-remedy for consumers by imposing 
injunctive relief to halt continuance, and prevent recurrence, of 
the violations of the Sherman Act by Microsoft that were upheld by 
the Court of Appeals, and restore the competitive conditions 
prevailing prior to Microsoft's unlawful conduct. The settling 
parties filed a proposed Final Judgment on November 2, 2001, and 
then a revised proposed Final Judgment on November 6, 2001, which is 
now being considered by the Court pursuant to the Tunney Act.
    Before commencing the settlement discussions, the Department 
established a set of core principles for resolution of the case, 
whether by litigation or consent. Key among them was the concept 
that the remedy had to be a comprehensive set of provisions that 
would stop the offending conduct and other similar means of 
achieving the same result, prevent its recurrence, and restore a 
competitive field for the development and deployment of competing 
middleware products. Moreover, the relief had to be faithful to the 
allegations of the complaint actually sustained by the Court of 
Appeals, addressing the conduct the Court had found to be unlawful. 
Finally, the remedy had to further the public interest in free and 
unfettered competition--not dictate market results and not 
necessarily serve the private interests of certain companies. 
Settlement occurred when Microsoft was prepared to agree to 
comprehensive relief satisfying these principles.

[[Page 30269]]

QUESTION

    Some have criticized the agreement for not going far enough. Do 
you believe that the proposed settlement compares favorably to-and 
in some respects may well exceed-the remedy that might have emerged 
from a judicial hearing?

ANSWER

    The Microsoft case is a public law enforcement action. The 
settlement, therefore, should be judged on whether it remedies the 
violations sustained by the Court--not on whether it is 
``tough'' on Microsoft or ``goes far enough'' in 
addressing the concerns of Microsoft's competitors and critics.
    The proposed Final Judgment represents, in substantial measure, 
the relief the Department would have proposed and fought for in 
court. In a remedies proceeding, however, we would have expected 
Microsoft to contest vigorously almost ever5'' provision 
extending beyond the literal findings of liability contained in the 
Court of Appeals'' decision. We would have fought hard to 
obtain this relief, but it is by no means a foregone conclusion that 
such relief would have been ordered. A few examples illustrate the 
point
    The original case identified Web browsers and Java technologies 
as potential threats to the operating system Both were broad-based 
middleware products with the potential to permit cross-platform 
(i.e., multiple operating system) development of a broad range of 
application software products. The current crop of middleware 
products (e.g., media players and instant messaging systems, etc.) 
tend to be category-specific, and are more likely to be platforms 
for narrower families of related applications. For this reason, 
among others, we would have expected vigorous litigation over the 
middleware definition and the need to extend the coverage of the 
proposed Final Judgment to products beyond the browser and Java. Our 
definition, however, expressly recognizes other middleware products 
currently in use (e.g., e-mail client software, networked audio/
video client software, instant messaging software) and is broad 
enough to include future products that have the potential to 
threaten the operating system monopoly.
    Microsoft's Windows products employ closed, proprietary 
technology. The company is under no general legal obligation to 
disclose or license its technology. Moreover, the Court of Appeals 
did not sustain any allegation that Microsoft's failure to disclose 
or license its technology (generally or, in particular, its 
applications program interfaces (``APIs'') or 
communications protocols) was, by itself, an act of monopoly 
maintenance. Thus, we would have anticipated hotly contested 
litigation over the imposition of an affirmative Microsoft 
obligation to assist others in developing competing products. In 
this regard, Microsoft would have pointed out that tens of thousands 
of software programs are developed using the standard APIs disclosed 
generally to the software community. The proposed Final Judgment, 
however, imposes that obligation as a temporary restorative measure 
designed to permit firms to develop competing middleware products 
that can compete with Microsoft on a function-by-function basis
    As discussed above, the case focused primarily on browsers and 
Java technologies The word ``server'' does not appear in 
the complaint and appears only in passing in Judge Jackson's 
Findings of Fact And, neither the Department nor the plaintiff 
States presented evidence at trial that Microsoft had violated the 
antitrust laws through conduct related to server software. Thus, we 
would have anticipated vigorous opposition to any effort to include 
relief with regard to servers in any litigated judgment. Microsoft 
would have argued strongly that software that resides on a server, 
is not middleware. Our proposed Final Judgment, however, ensures 
that independent software vendors will have full access to, and be 
able to use, the protocols that are necessary for software located 
on a server computer to interoperate with, and fully take advantage 
of, the functionality provided by any Windows operating system 
product. .
    The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to allow 
competing middleware products to assume ``default'' status 
in the operating system (i.e., selected by the manufacturer or user 
and automatically invoked unless countermanded by a manual choice) 
and requires the company to make design changes to accomplish that 
result. These provisions are important to permit competing 
middleware vendors to develop products that are comparable to 
Microsoft's in their integration into the operating system. This was 
not an issue highlighted when the case initially was brought, and 
the Court of Appeals had ruled against the government with regard to 
the few specific examples of Microsoft having countermanded a user's 
Web browser selection. The default provisions of the proposed Final 
Judgment impose costly and continuing redesign obligations upon 
Microsoft and likely would have been hotly contested in any 
litigation.
    As you are aware, the government would have borne the burden of 
proof with regard to all remedial questions
    The proposed Final Judgment secures immediate relief With regard 
to the foregoing issues and perhaps many others, a litigated 
resolution most likely would have been subject to additional appeals 
taking many months, if not years, including appeals to the Supreme 
Court on the liability finding itself.

QUESTION

    This litigation has been going on for almost 4 years. Will this 
settlement accelerate the point in time at which a remedy will begin 
to take effect

ANSWER

    Although the proposed Final Judgment must still be reviewed by 
the District Court under the Tunney Act process, the remedy 
contained in the Final Judgment took effect on December 16, 2001, 
pursuant to the stipulation signed by Microsoft to abide by its 
terms The remedy applies to Microsoft's conduct nationwide and has a 
term of five years Given the substantial likelihood that Microsoft 
would have availed itself of all opportunities for appellate review 
of any non-consensual judgment, the Department estimated that a 
litigated result would not have become final for at least another 
two years, and perhaps much later. The remedies contained in the 
proposed Final Judgment are not only consistent with the relief that 
the Department might have obtained in litigation, but they have the 
advantages of immediacy and certainty.

QUESTION

    Assuming the settlement is approved by the court, can you 
outline the steps that will be taken to ensure compliance with the 
settlement

ANSWER

    A core team of experienced lawyers and economists established 
within our newly formed Networks & Technology Section, and 
including members of the litigation team, is charged with 
enforcement of the proposed Final Judgment. This enforcement team, 
assisted by the technical committee formed under the proposed Final 
Judgment, will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the Final 
Judgment and take any necessary action, up to and including 
initiating contempt proceedings, to ensure effective enforcement

QUESTION

    6. Are you aware of this type of enforcement mechanism being 
adopted in any other antitrust proceeding?

ANSWER

    The Department is unaware of such a stringent enforcement 
mechanism being adopted in any other antitrust proceeding.
    SENATOR KOHL'' S QUESTIONS

QUESTION

    Mr. James, a unanimous Court of Appeals held that Microsoft has 
violated out antitrust laws by illegally maintaining its monopoly. 
It seems pretty common sense that if we want to fix that violation, 
the settlement you are advocating should: (1) end the unlawful 
conduct; (2) avoid a recurrence of the violation; and (3) and undo 
the anticompetitive consequences of the illegal behavior. Indeed, 
the Supreme Court has said that we should ``deny to the 
defendant the fruits'' of its illegal conduct. As you know, 
when this case was first filed, one of the main problems was that 
Microsoft's illegal conduct had nearly driven a competing maker of 
Internet browsing software--Netscape Navigator--out of 
business. But today, Microsoft has a greater than 85% share of 
browsing software. And Netscape is no longer in business as an 
independent company and no longer is a serious threat as a competing 
platform.
    So I have the following questions: how does this proposed 
settlement proposal in any way deny Microsoft the gains resulting 
from its illegal, anti-competitive conduct? Does it do anything, for 
example, to undo Microsoft's victory in the ``browser 
wars''?

ANSWER

    The sole basis for liability sustained by the Court of Appeals 
was maintenance of the monopoly in PC operating systems. The courts 
specifically rejected both the exclusive dealing and attempted 
monopolization claims, and reversed the tying finding--the

[[Page 30270]]

government claims asserting unlawful gain to Microsoft in the market 
for Web browsers. Thus, within the confines of the case as it 
exists, there is little or no legal basis for asserting that 
Microsoft's present share of the browser market is a 
``fruit'' of its unlawful conduct.
    Under the monopoly maintenance count, Microsoft benefitted by 
impeding the emergence of potential middleware threats to its 
operating system monopoly. While recognizing the 
``nascent'' threat that Web browsers and Java technologies 
posed to the operating system, the Department conceded, and both 
courts found, that it was impossible to predict when, if ever, that 
threat would materialize as to a degree sufficient to have any 
material effect upon competition in the operating system market.
    The proposed Final Judgment seeks to restore the middleware 
threat as it existed prior to the offending conduct by enjoining 
conduct to impede the emergence of competing middleware and by 
requiring affirmative steps to aid in the development of such 
products. The proposed Final Judgment requires Microsoft to give 
software developers access to the API's necessary to develop 
competing middleware, ensures that those products can gain 
distribution in the OEM channel, permits OEMs to feature competing 
middleware products, gives third-party middleware 
``default'' status comparable to Microsoft's integrated 
functions, and prevents Microsoft from retaliating against firms 
that develop, promote or distribute competing middleware. 
Accordingly, the proposed Final Judgment actually enhances the 
opportunities for competing middleware products beyond those 
existing prior to the case.

QUESTION

    Five years from now do you think it is likely that Microsoft 
will still have 95% of the operating system market? If so, should 
this concern us?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment is not intended to address 
Microsoft's acquisition of its market position in operating systems. 
There was never any allegation in the case that Microsoft unlawfully 
gained its dominant share in that market. Thus, the proposed Final 
Judgment does not require Microsoft to forfeit its market position 
in operating systems, but rather ends Microsoft's unlawful conduct, 
prevents its recurrence and restores the competitive conditions in 
the middleware market. Whether any of these middleware threats will 
ultimately lead to the reduction of Microsoft's operating system 
market share will be determined by the marketplace. The Department 
is unable to speculate as to what Microsoft's share will be in the 
future.

QUESTION

    We are right now in the middle of the holiday shopping season, 
and millions of Americans are going to the computer stores to buy 
new computers. When they reach the store, they have a choice of many 
different machines made by many different computer manufacturers, 
such as Compaq, Dell, Gateway, IBM, and HP, to name a few. But when 
it comes to the software that operates the machine they face a very 
different picture. With the exception of the machines sold by Apple, 
the consumer has no choice but to buy a computer pre-loaded with 
Microsoft's Windows operating system. Is there anything in the 
proposed settlement agreement likely to change this picture? Why 
can't consumers have the same competitive choices in computer 
software--specifically operating system software--as they, 
have today with respect to deciding which machine to buy?

ANSWER

    As stated above, there was never any allegation in the case that 
Microsoft unlawfully acquired its dominant share in operating 
systems, and the proposed Final Judgment does not address 
Microsoft's position in that market. However, the proposed Final 
Judgment does ensure that competing middleware products will have 
the opportunity to compete and erode Microsoft's operating system 
monopoly. The marketplace will determine whether a middleware 
product becomes sufficiently ubiquitous to pose such a threat to the 
Windows operating system

QUESTION

    4.(a).
    Critics of the proposed settlement claim it is full of 
loopholes, and that these loopholes will make it easy for Microsoft 
to evade its terms. I'd like to focus on one thing critics argue is 
an unnecessary loophole. The settlement contains an important 
provision that lets computer makers load certain types of non-
Microsoft software on their machines without any fear of retaliation 
from Microsoft. But Microsoft can retaliate in some instances For 
example, only competing software that distributed at least one 
million copies in the United States in the last year receives 
protection. No such protection is imposed upon competing software 
which has distributed less than one million copies.
    Commenting on this provision in the Washington Post, James 
Barksdale, the founder of Netscape, wrote ``Anyone who 
understands the [computer] industry knows this is no protection, for 
the new inventor will always be steam-rolled by the powerful 
Microsoft. The dreamers and tinkerers whose better mousetrap has not 
yet been proved should just close shop. The ultimate losers are the 
potential consumers of these lost ideas.'' Why is this 
limitation found in the settlement? Won't it be difficult for 
software that has not yet been widely distributed to gain a 
competitive foothold if Microsoft is not required to allow computer 
users and manufacturers access to it on the desktop? And why isn't 
Mr. Barksdale right--aren't consumers the losers if Microsoft 
is permitted to deny such small, start-up software manufacturers 
access to the computer desktop?

ANSWER

    Mr. Barksdale's commentary, misstates the one million copy 
limitation of the proposed Final Judgment. The proposed Final 
Judgment prohibits retaliation by Microsoft related to any 
middleware, no matter how many copies are distributed. Furthermore, 
under the proposed Final Judgment, a computer manufacturer will have 
the right to install any competing middleware application, without 
regard to the number of copies of that competing middleware that 
have been distributed. The one million copy limitation exists only 
with respect to the requirements that Microsoft make public the APIs 
used in its own middleware products and redesign the operating 
system to provide a competing middleware product 
``default'' status--i.e., the ability to override 
automatically Microsoft middleware functions integrated into the 
operating system The limitation strikes the proper balance between 
the substantial costs associated with such documentation and 
redesign efforts, and the competitive potential of products with 
fewer than one million copies distributed. To do otherwise would 
have put the operating system in a state of constant flux, which 
would have had disastrous implications for users and developers 
alike. Moreover, in a world of about 625 million PC users and 
software distribution via downloads and direct mail, distribution of 
only one million copies, rather than sales, installation or usage, 
is a relatively minor threshold in the software industry today. As 
you know, Americans routinely receive unsolicited software offers 
via the mail every, day.

QUESTION

    4.(b).
    Please give specific examples of ``non-Microsoft middleware 
products'' (as defined in the proposed consent decree, section 
VI.N.) that have distributed at least one million copies in the 
United States in the past year, and examples of those that have not.

ANSWER

    A few of the examples available of non-Microsoft middleware 
products that have distributed at least one million copies in the 
U.S. in the past year include Real Network's media player, Real 
Player, AOL's ICQ instant messaging product, and Opera, a competing 
Web browser.
    The Department is unaware of any non-Microsoft middleware 
products that distributed less than one million copies in the U.S. 
in the past year. As explained in response to Question 4(a) above, 
distribution of only one million copies, rather than sales, 
installation or usage, is a relatively minor threshold in the 
software industry today. Once the terms of the proposed Final 
Judgment become known in the market, the producers of smaller 
middleware products will be able to target the one million copy 
threshold by simply using one of the numerous distribution outlets 
available in the market today, for example, direct- mail.

QUESTION

    4.(c). What types of research and/or objective methods are used 
to measure such distribution today? Which studies or objective 
criteria did you use to set the one million dollar mark

ANSWER

    Competing middleware providers will be able to ensure that they 
can take advantage of the powers granted to them under III.H. of

[[Page 30271]]

the proposed Final Judgment by simply disclosing the number of 
copies they have distributed. Distribution numbers are currently 
publicly disclosed on the numerous sites available for downloading 
such products, including Netcom. The Department considered various 
levels of distribution when deciding the appropriate amount. One 
million was chosen because it strikes the proper balance between the 
substantial costs associated with such documentation and redesign 
efforts, and the competitive potential of products with fewer than 
one million copies distributed. In fact, one million copies 
represents well under 1% of the installed base of Windows desktops 
in the U.S.

QUESTION

    5 (a).
    In the proposed consent decree, with respect to current 
products, the definition of Microsoft Middleware Product is locked 
into specific products (section VI.K. 1 of the Proposed Final 
Judgment). Where it is prospective, the definition of Microsoft 
Middleware Product allows Microsoft to avoid its reach if it does 
not satisfy all of the elements of the definition (found in section 
VI.K2).
    Why do you believe this definition is sufficient to restore 
competition in the middleware market?

ANSWER

    There is no basis for restricting Microsoft's conduct with 
respect to all types of software Any restrictions must be limited to 
the findings in this case, which were that Microsoft took 
exclusionary acts against software with particular 
characteristics--software that had the potential to become 
platforms for the implementation of other software, thereby 
threatening Microsoft's operating system monopoly. The Microsoft 
Middleware Product definition was carefully crafted to ensure that 
it covers future Microsoft products that have the potential to 
become such platforms. The definition uses objective criteria that 
are not subject to manipulation. Either a product fits the 
definition or it does not. If, for whatever reason, it does not fit 
the definition, the product will not be one that the proposed Final 
Judgment was intended to cover

QUESTION

    5 (b)
    Why is the definition of middleware in the proposed consent 
decree different from the one used by the D.C Circuit Court of 
Appeals, or the one used by Judge Jackson in his interim remedy?

ANSWER

    The Court of Appeals'' decision did not seek to define the 
term middleware in a manner that would suffice for remedial 
purposes. Rather, the opinion contains descriptive language to aid 
in the exposition of the issues in the case. For remedial purposes, 
the definition must be more technical so as to ensure limits within 
the terms of the liability found and enforceability of the proposed 
Final Judgment. The Court of Appeals found that Microsoft engaged in 
anticompetitive practices with respect to two middleware products, 
Web browsers and Java. Those products were deemed to have exposed a 
range of APIs so as to have the potential to evolve into an 
alternate platform threat, thereby threatening Microsoft's operating 
system monopoly. Not all products that expose APIs have that 
quality. The proposed Final Judgment adopts a broad definition of 
middleware that includes the specific products at issue in this 
case, other specific products that already have emerged as potential 
alternative platforms, and products that may be developed in the 
future that may have similar cross-platform qualities.
    The middleware definitions in the proposed Final Judgment are 
different than those in Judge Jackson's order because in the 
intervening time period the Department refined the definitions to 
more accurately reflect the competitive objectives of the judgment 
and to take into account changes in the software industry, including 
an increased emphasis on downloading as a distribution mechanism

QUESTION

    5,(c). Why is MSN Explorer excluded from the current products 
that constitute Microsoft Middleware Products in section VI.K 1 of 
the Proposed Final Judgment?

ANSWER

    MSN Explorer is used largely by consumers who have already 
chosen MSN as their Internet service provider or who have chosen 
Hotmail for their email. It is marketed more in that context than as 
a simple browser. Competitively it has less significance in the 
browser market than Internet Explorer.

QUESTION

    Many believe Microsoft is using its operating system monopoly to 
gain dominance in other types of software products. For example, 
five years ago, Microsoft had only about a 20 market share in 
Internet browsing software. Today it has an 86 share. Five years 
ago, Microsoft had 43% share in word processing software. Today 
Microsoft Word software has a 94% market share.
    What provisions in the settlement will prevent Microsoft from 
gaining dominant market shares in new software products, just as it 
has with respect to other types of software?

ANSWER

    The concept to which you refer is known in antitrust parlance as 
``monopoly leveraging.'' The States included a monopoly 
leveraging count in their complaint in this matter. That count, 
however, was dismissed by Judge Jackson in pretrial proceedings. U.S 
antitrust precedent treats monopoly leveraging claims with much 
skepticism. Indeed, as the Court of Appeals noted in rejecting 
certain of Judge Jackson's rulings with respect to Java, U.S. 
antitrust law does not prohibit a firm, even one with monopoly 
power, from using advantages gained in one market to enhance its 
position in an adjacent market. Given the Court's rejection of the 
monopoly leveraging claim, there is no legal basis in this case for 
addressing allegations of monopoly leveraging.

QUESTION

    7.(a).
    Mr. James, if this settlement is adequate to restore competition 
and remedy Microsoft's illegal conduct, why have nine state 
attorneys general who initially joined the Justice
    Department in suing Microsoft refused to sign on to the 
settlement but have instead proposed their own settlement?

ANSWER

    The Department cannot speculate on the possible motives of the 
various State attorneys general who did not join the settlement.

QUESTION

    7.(b)
    Are you willing to consider modifications to the proposed 
settlement in order to secure the consent of additional state 
attorneys general? If so, what modifications would you consider?

ANSWER

    The Department believes that the proposed Final Judgment 
Full3'' remedies the conduct found unlawful by the Court of 
Appeals. The Department, however, will fully comply with the Tunney 
Act, including giving due consideration to the public comments 
submitted.

QUESTION

    8.(a).
    The proposed consent decree lasts for only five years (unless a 
Court finds Microsoft has engaged in systematic violations of the 
decree, in which case it is extended for another two years).
    Can you inform me in which past monopoly cases brought by the 
government where a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act has 
been found, the federal courts have limited their conduct remedies 
against the monopolist to only five years?

ANSWER

    The Department is aware of at least one Section 2 case in which 
the government obtained a final judgment that included conduct 
remedies that were in effect for five years or less-- U.S. v. 
American Airlines, Civil Action No CA 3-83-0325-D, U.S 
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Final Judgment 
entered on October 31, t985, see 1985-2 Trade Cases 66,866).

QUESTION

    8.(b) Why have you limited the remedy to five years in this 
case? How can we be sure that the five year term of the settlement 
is sufficient to restore competition to this market?

ANSWER

    Five years provides sufficient time for the conduct remedies 
contained in the proposed Final Judgment to take effect in this 
evolving market and to restore competitive conditions to the 
greatest extent possible given the conduct at issue in this case.

QUESTION

    8.(c) Why do the restraints on Microsoft's conduct in some 
instances take as long as one year to go into effect.'?

[[Page 30272]]

ANSWER

    The only provisions in the proposed Final Judgment that do not 
require Microsoft to immediately abide by their terms once the Final 
Judgment is in effect are Sections III.D., III.E., and III.H. These 
provisions provide Microsoft with a limited amount of time to 
implement the company's duties because they require Microsoft to 
actually redesign its products or establish new disclosure 
procedures that could take some time to accomplish. In addition, 
requiring Microsoft to immediately disclose the unfinished 
interfaces for its new products in development in Section III.D. 
would actually be detrimental to the market because Microsoft 
continuously changes and improves these interfaces before a product 
is finalized. If the interfaces are changed after a software 
developer uses them in its products, it may disable both the 
software product and the operating system Giving Microsoft a limited 
amount of time to implement its duties under these provisions 
ensures that they are properly implemented

QUESTION

    8 (d). How likely, do you think software developers will be to 
develop new products based on a decree that will protect them for 
only five years?

ANSWER

    Five years provides sufficient time for the conduct remedies 
contained in the proposed Final Judgment to take effect in this 
evolving market and to restore competitive conditions to the 
greatest extent possible given the conduct at issue in this case The 
marketplace will decide what middleware products will succeed.

QUESTION

    8.(e). Will you commit to initiating new investigations and, if 
necessary, new court proceedings, if Microsoft behaves in an anti-
competitive manner in the future?

ANSWER

    As a law enforcement agency, the Department will continue to 
evaluate Microsoft's conduct and take action to remedy 
anticompetitive conduct where appropriate.
    SENATOR DURBIN'S QUESTIONS

QUESTION

    I understand that the Justice Department officials, 
representatives of the State Attorneys General, and Microsoft 
lawyers worked around the clock to come to an agreement on this 
settlement.
    How many, meetings were there on the settlement?

ANSWER

    The proposed Final Judgment resulted from a process of court-
ordered settlement discussions and mediation, commencing on 
September 28, and concluding on November 2, 2001, the deadline 
imposed by Judge Kollar-Kotelly. The mediation followed upon about 
two weeks of court-ordered, unsupervised discussions among the 
Department, counsel for Microsoft and representatives of the 
plaintiff States. Although we did not meet continuously, throughout 
both periods, there were communications among the parties every day, 
in-person or telephonically, and the settlement teams, more often 
than not, worked well into the night. The Department, however, did 
not maintain an accounting of the number of meetings or 
communications during the settlement discussions.

QUESTION

    1.B. Were the states sufficiently involved in the process2

ANSWER

    Following the Court's September 28th Order, the Department was 
advised that the State coordination group would appoint 
representatives to participate in the settlement discussions and 
that the representatives would report to the larger group through 
regular conference calls and other means. Once the mediation 
commenced, the States were continuously represented by the states of 
Ohio and New York, with Wisconsin actively participating on some 
occasions. All three of these states joined in the proposed 
settlement.
    The Department worked to facilitate the States'' 
participation in the settlement process Among other things, the 
Department permitted the State representatives to work in its case 
room, side-by-side with the Department staff State representatives 
participated in strategy sessions with the Assistant Attorney 
General and other senior representatives from the Department prior 
to their joint negotiating sessions. At critical junctures in the 
settlement process, the Assistant Attorney General convened 
meetings, in-person or via scheduled conference calls, with the 
State coordinating group, which meetings were often attended by 
several State attorneys general and their staffs or representatives.
    Additionally, the Assistant Attorney General maintained regular 
telephonic communication with Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, the 
appointed leader of the State plaintiffs. The mediators also took 
steps to encourage full participation by each of the States. At the 
outset, they inquired as to whether representation of the State 
plaintiffs by Ohio, New York and Wisconsin was adequate to ensure 
that all the States would be in a position to carry out the Court's 
order. The mediators met with the State group separately on several 
occasions. In the end, they requested that all interested States 
send authorized decision- makers to Washington for the final stages 
of mediation.
    In short, the States, individually and as a group, were afforded 
every opportunity to participate in the settlement process, and did 
so on terms they themselves agreed upon. The States had full access 
to the process, including all drafts of the settlement documents. At 
no time were the States precluded from tendering settlement 
proposals or alternative drafts of the settlement provisions of 
their own, and in fact, were expressly invited to do so by, both the 
mediators and representatives of the Department. As with other 
phases of the case, the level of actual State participation varied 
widely.
    It is not for the Department to opine whether the States 
participated sufficiently in the settlement process. We would note 
that the States that participated most directly in the process 
joined in the proposed Final Judgment, and those that participated 
only indirectly or not at all chose not to do so.

QUESTION

    Was there anyone in the room during those negotiations who was 
not affiliated with the parties to the litigation who may have been 
able to bring another perspective on the terms of the agreement?

ANSWER

    The court-ordered settlement discussions that were conducted 
prior to the appointment of the mediators on October 12, 2001, did 
not include individuals unaffiliated with the parties to the 
litigation. The only persons present during the settlement 
discussions after October 12 who were not affiliated with a party 
were the Court-appointed mediator, Eric Green, and his partner, 
Jonathan Marks.

QUESTION

    Now that we are in the 60-day period of the Tunney Act 
proceeding to determine the public interest aspects of this 
settlement; what, if any, role do you envision Congress should play?

ANSWER

    The Department would not presume to tell Congress what, if any, 
role it should play with regard to Tunney Act review of the proposed 
Final Judgment.

QUESTION

    Microsoft is about to settle with about half the states who 
joined in the original DOJ lawsuit, but the other half of the states 
are continuing with the court-issued remedies phase of the 
litigation. Naturally, there may be differences in the remedies in 
the two different vehicles for closing out this case. How will you 
reconcile the potential differences between the terms of the 
settlement accepted by the nine settling state plaintiffs and the 
remedies to be awarded to the ten non-settling state plaintiffs?

ANSWER

    In any multiple-plaintiff litigation, there is the possibility 
of different, perhaps conflicting, remedies. In private antitrust 
litigation, where the issue is monetary recovery or the rights of 
individual companies, disparate outcomes may be manageable. The 
Microsoft case, however, presents a circumstance in which both the 
federal government and several state governments are purporting to 
litigate substantially identical substantive allegations and seeking 
injunctive relief that would have national public policy 
implications, affecting the rights of consumers and producers 
nationwide. With the states increasingly opting to pursue antitrust 
cases following upon charges already being litigated by the federal 
antitrust enforcement agencies, the risk of conflicting or 
inconsistent remedies is always present. In multiple-plaintiff 
cases, the courts and parties typically undertake to prevent such 
conflicts from occurring. All par-ties, of course, would be bound by 
the orders of the court, and meaningful conflicts could become the 
source of future litigation. The Department believes that the 
proposed Final Judgment represents a full and

[[Page 30273]]

complete resolution of the violations sustained by the Court of 
Appeals and that entry of the proposed Final Judgment is strongly in 
the public interest Whether or not conflicts emerge, as the agency 
charged with ensuring that the federal antitrust laws are duly 
enforced for the benefit of all Americans and the U.S. economy as a 
whole, the Department will do all in its power to ensure full 
compliance with the proposed Final Judgment and to protect the 
antitrust enforcement process itself.

Answers to Written Questions.

    The Senate Judiciary Committee,
    ``The Microsoft Settlement: A Look to the Future''
    Lawrence Lessig
    Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR HATCH

    1. In your book, you make the case for keeping the Internet 
``neutral and open.'' Could you briefly describe the 
danger that you foresee, in both a competition and a larger policy 
context, as consumers migrate to higher capacity connections from 
our current narrowband connections?
    The broadband policy of the current administration will weaken 
the environment for innovation on the Internet, because current 
policy will balkanize the Internet, and hinder the opportunity for 
outsiders to compete.
    As consumers move from narrowband to broadband, the legal rules 
governing at least part of the network are changing. The narrowband 
Internet was governed by rules that required neutrality by the 
network owners over the use of the Internet. The broadband Internet 
will be governed by rules that increasingly allow the network owners 
to pick and choose the kind of innovation and content that the 
network will carry. This change in legal rules will shift the locus 
of innovation from the edge of the network to the center--away 
from the broad range of creators and innovators that have built the 
Internet so far, to the relatively few who own or who control the 
network. What runs well on this Internet will increasingly depend 
upon who the network owner is. These changes are said to be 
necessary in order to support the building of the national 
information super highway. In my view, Congress should weigh this 
claim much more carefully. It is true that giving broadband 
providers this power to discriminate will increase their incentive 
to build broadband pipes. But before we sell the soul of the 
Internet to the network owners, a much stronger showing of need 
should be made. We didn't give GM the right to build the interstate 
highway system in exchange for GM's right to build the roads to 
favor GM trucks. Nor should we sell the Internet to broadband 
providers in exchange for their right to favor some content over 
others, or choose which applications will define the Internet of the 
future. In both cases, the strong presumption should be in favor of 
neutrality. Congress should weigh the costs of corrupting this 
principle of neutrality before it endorses a policy that permits 
this rearchitecting of the Internet's core.
    2. One concern I have consistently raised elsewhere, including 
in merger and monopolization contexts, has been possible limitations 
being placed on consumer freedom by an access provider, whether an 
Internet service provider, a cable company, a satellite company, or 
another Internet access facilitator. Is there is a legitimate fear 
that an Internet mediator might--for one reason or 
another--decide to limit access to certain sites or drive 
traffic to other specified sites? If so, what do you believe to be 
the best method of safeguarding and preserving the freedom of the 
Internet? It is right to be concerned that access providers will 
wrongfully constrain consumer freedom. Technology companies have 
already developed router technology to enable network owners to 
choose which content will flow quickly, and which content will flow 
slowly. This technology could enable the blocking of some content, 
or the disabling of some applications. Cable companies carrying 
Internet content have already indicated their intent to implement 
these technologies. And there is nothing this administration is 
doing that would slow this trend.
    The concern about neutral access to the Internet is similar to 
the concern about access to satellite or cable broadcasts generally. 
But I believe it is a mistake to equate the two. The harm to 
innovation and creativity from restrictions to the Internet is more 
fundamental than the harms caused by restrictions to entertainment.
    The reason is that access to entertainment competes directly 
with many other channels of entertainment. If the choice on cable 
television is too narrow, then Blockbuster or Netflix provides 
useful competition. If satellite stations become too expensive, then 
cable television, or broadcast television-- or maybe even a 
book!--continue to compete. At some point concentration in 
these channels is a concern, as Jack Valenti has powerfully and 
rightly testified to Congress.\1\ But that is different from the 
concern I have about the Internet. The Internet is not just, or not 
only, another way to be entertained. It is instead a platform that 
will support the broadest opportunity for social and democratic 
engagement. The Internet is a public street, or park, or library, 
not a Movieplex. Restrictions on access and control of the Internet 
are like restrictions on access to the public streets, not like 
choices Sony Pictures makes about what will run in first-run 
theatres.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, e.g., Media Ownership: Diversity and 
Concentration: Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Communications of the 
Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 101st Cong. 
611 (1989) (statement of Jack Valenti, President and CEO, MPAA).at 
611 (``Therefore, in this free and loving land in which we 
live, our government ought never allow any tiny group of corporate 
chieftains or corporate entities, no matter how beignly managed, to 
ever reassert full dominion over prime time television, which is the 
most pervasive moral, social, political and cultural force in this 
country.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in my view, you have been right to be concerned about 
restrictions on access in the context of cable and satellite 
delivery of entertainment and news. And you have been right to be 
concerned that citizens generally have access to news about matters 
of public import. But there is an even stronger reason for you to be 
concerned with restrictions on access in the context of the 
Internet. Much more is at stake.
    I am not certain about the best remedy to this non-neutrality. 
Network owners have a legitimate interest in selling different 
levels of service; the market should be allowed to experiment with 
different modes of delivery. Where there are many different 
competitors offering comparable broadband service, there is little 
role for government. But where competition is not adequate, then 
there is an oversight role for government.
    ``Open access'' requirements are one indirect response 
to the absence of competition. Alternatively, a simple requirement 
that any Internet service be implemented neutrally may suffice to 
remedy any anticompetitive threat.
    3. As you know, on the Internet, anyone can self-publish their 
music, their artwork, Lessig: Testimony January 15, 2002 their 
writings, and those who are interested in those works can have 
access to them, and neither the creator nor the consumer necessarily 
need the mediation of a publisher. Works that are important to a 
few, but cannot make it in a traditional publishing context, have a 
place for their fans on the Internet. I have said elsewhere that it 
would be a great shame if the wide-open access available on the 
Internet were narrowed down in the way the offline world often is. 
Could you please explain who you believe should choose where a 
consumer can go online, the consumer or the Internet mediator, be it 
an Internet service provider, a software company, or a cable or 
satellite company, and could you explain why this is an important 
question?
    Losing the freedom of choice that the original architecture of 
the Internet guaranteed would be far more than a ``great 
shame.'' Losing the freedom of choice that the original 
architecture of the Internet guaranteed would be a betrayal of the 
values of free speech and competition that define our political and 
social culture.
    The original architecture of the Internet showed the world how a 
decentralized, market- based, neutral platform for innovation could 
enable the broadest range of creators to produce and exchange 
creative work. This was not the speculation of some utopian academic 
or technologist. The early Internet made this possibility a reality, 
and none can deny the opportunity it created. Lessig: Testimony 
January 15, 2002
    This reality is being changed now, as the original architectural 
principles of the Internet become corrupted by network owners. As 
the Internet moves to broadband technology, broadband providers are 
changing the effective architecture of the original network to re-
vest in them control over how innovation on this network proceeds. 
The original Internet vested that control in consumers and 
innovators; the new Internet will return that control to the network 
owners.
    This change is happening because government policy encourages it 
to happen. We are selling the soul of the Internet to network 
providers because the network providers have convinced policy makers 
that this is the only way to build out a broadband network.

[[Page 30274]]

    The network providers in my view are wrong. The policy makers 
who follow them are misguided. But at a minimum, whether you believe 
they are wrong or not, Congress has yet to consider the full cost of 
this corruption in the Internet's core.
    I believe fundamentally in the freedom of a network where the 
people, not, as you rightly describe it, ``a network 
mediator,'' choose the future. That freedom is the original 
Internet, which because of its ``end to end'' design, 
assured that citizens, not network mediators, controlled how the 
network developed. There is no good justification for permitting 
network providers the power to corrupt that original freedom. Yet 
this is precisely what current administration policy is allowing.
    You have been an admirable advocate of balance, Senator Hatch. 
That balance is just what is needed now in this debate over the 
network's future.

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR DEWINE

    1. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an appropriate 
remedy should try and steer Microsoft toward developing its strategy 
in regards to the Internet. First, why wouldn't such an objective 
fall outside the clear confines of the case and thus be an 
inappropriate goal for a remedy? And second, given the fact that a 
court found Microsoft to have engaged in significant violations of 
the antitrust laws, should we be concerned about the company 
attempting to leverage its operating system monopoly to become 
dominant at the Internet level?
    If this market were stable, and technological progress slow, 
then it would be appropriate to confine a remedy to the 
retrospective harm caused by the illegal behavior of Microsoft. But 
this market is neither stable, and fortunately, progress is not 
slow. Instead, the particular wrongs that Microsoft was found guilty 
of are essentially irrelevant to the current competitive context. 
Forcing a remedy with respect to these alone would neither 
``1unfetter [the] market from anticompetitive conduct,'' 
`terminate the illegal monopoly, deny to the defendant the 
fruits of its statutory violation,''' nor 
```ensure that there remain no practices likely to result 
in monopolization in the future.''' United States v. 
Microsoft Corporation, 253 F.3d 54, 103 (DC Cir 2001).
    It is for this reason that I believe that the essence of an 
appropriate remedy must look forward, and ask how best to steer 
Microsoft in a pro-competitive direction. Given the findings of 
liability by the District Court, and the pattern of behavior that 
they affirm, I do believe that you should be worried that Microsoft 
will try to protect its OS monopoly by leveraging it to control at 
the Internet level. But as I describe more fully in my written 
testimony, I also believe that there is a strategy that Microsoft 
could adopt that would not threaten competition at the Internet 
level, but could instead strengthen it. If a remedy could steer 
Microsoft to adopt this competitively benign strategy, that remedy 
would be a crucial gain for competition generally--even if it 
did not fully right the wrongs caused in the past.
    2. Mr. Lessig, you stated in your testimony that an integral 
part of the Court's conclusion was its finding that Microsoft had 
``commingled code'' in such a way as to interfere with the 
ability of competitors to compete on an even playing field. Do you 
believe the Justice Department's proposed final judgment adequately 
deals with this anticompetitive conduct?
    I do not believe the proposed final judgment is responsive to 
this concern. The Court of Appeals recognized a second and important 
way in which a monopoly firm in a technology market can improperly 
use its power to inhibit competition. Not only can such a firm use 
contracts to restrain competition, it can also use computer code to 
constrain competition. The essence of the District Court's finding 
was that Microsoft had used its code strategically to disable or 
hinder competition rather than to give consumers a better choice. 
That finding was twice upheld by the Court of Appeals--both in 
its initial opinion, and it the opinion rejecting Microsoft's 
petition for rehearing.
    I am particularly concerned that this aspect of the case is now 
being ignored by the government. In a recent interview with the Wall 
Street Journal, for example, Assistant Attorney General Charles 
James is reported to have said, in response to the observation that 
``various Internet features are woven more deeply into Windows, 
offering consumers such benefits as one-click access to the Internet 
from electronic mail,''\2\ ``How would consumers be served 
if we forced Microsoft to remove that code? ... The market has 
changed.''
    This statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the 
issues in this case as it was litigated and decided by the District 
Court. No one has ever questioned Microsoft's right to include code 
that would enable better functionality--in this case, the 
ability of a user to link from an email message to a browser. The 
only issue has been the decision by Microsoft to use its power over 
its code to inhibit consumer choice of which browser. Microsoft has 
consistently argued that it did not interfere with consumer choice. 
The District Court and Court of Appeals found to the contrary. See, 
e.g., Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 66. And in rejecting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ John Wilke, Hard Drive: Negotiating All Night, 
Tenacious Microsoft Won Many Loopholes, Wall Street Journal, Al (11/
9/01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Microsoft's request for rehearing about the ``commingled 
code'' finding, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed a central 
aspect of the case: That Microsoft had used its power to design its 
code in a way that restricted consumer choice without any 
compensating competitive benefit.
    Nothing in the proposed remedy directly addresses this concern. 
But more troubling to me is that the government seems no longer to 
even understand it. After convincing a district and appellate court 
of its view about Microsoft's behavior, the government seems now to 
have adopted Microsoft's view of its behavior. I have seen no 
justification offered by the government for this reversal on a 
central element of its case.
    3. Mr. Lessig, you mention that there are problems with the 
proposed decree aside from enforcement. What are some of the other 
areas of concern?
    As I have just mentioned, the failure of the decree adequately 
to address ``commingled code'' is a significant problem. I 
also believe the failure to require disclosure in the context of 
security protocols is a significant weakness, as is the failure of 
the decree fully to define ``retaliation.''
    These weaknesses have been adequately described, in my view, in 
the Nine Remaining States'' December 7th filing with the 
district court. Except for the questions that I have raised about 
that filing in my written testimony, I agree generally with the 
concerns raised by those states.
    4. Mr. Lessig, what do you believe are the appropriate 
objectives of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you 
believe the case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition 
cases should be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases? 
Finally, do you believe this settlement fully achieves the 
appropriate remedy objectives? If not, in what way is it deficient?
    As the Court of Appeals rightly indicated, the objective of a 
remedy in a monopolization case is extremely broad. Microsoft, 253 
F.3d at 103. In general terms, its aim is to recover from the 
monopolist the fruits of its illegal activity, and assure it can no 
longer benefit from those illegal gains.
    In my view, it is impossible fully to achieve these results in a 
context where technologies are changing rapidly. The problem is much 
like trying to remedy any harm caused by the choice of the QWERTY 
keyboard--at this point too much has been built on the 
underlying technology, and any remedy that seeks to completely undo 
what has been done would be more costly than beneficial.
    Thus, I think the appropriate distinction for the court to focus 
is not between monopoly acquisition and monopoly maintenance cases, 
but between cases where technology is relatively stable, and cases 
where it is changing quickly. As I've indicated, I don't believe the 
current remedy achieves the appropriate objectives, given the nature 
of the changes in the underlying technology.

QUESTIONS OF SENATOR KOHL

    1. Professor Lessig, do you believe this settlement is adequate 
to restore competition in the computer software industry? Why or why 
not?
    The settlement is not adequate to restore competition in the 
computer software industry. Because the settlement has no effective 
mechanism for enforcement, it tempts Microsoft to continue the 
strategic behavior that the District Court and the Court of Appeals 
found violated the antitrust laws. As this case demonstrates, if it 
takes four years for Microsoft to ``understand the 
[government's] concerns,'' Statement by Bill Gates, November 6, 
2001, then by the time Microsoft gets it, the harm is already done.
    2. (a) Are there any restraints on Microsoft's conduct which you 
think should be in the settlement but are not? If so, what are they?
    As I indicated to Senator Dewine, I do believe that there should 
be additional restrictions on Microsoft's conduct, especially 
relating to Microsoft's ability to ``commingle code.'' But 
those additional

[[Page 30275]]

restrictions are secondary to an effective mechanism to enforce the 
decree. As I indicated in my written testimony, without an effective 
enforcement mechanism, the balance of the restrictions are 
irrelevant, and with an effective enforcement mechanism, the 
weaknesses in the restrictions may not matter.
    2. (b) Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, are there other 
deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which you believe should 
be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are they?
    The central weakness in the decree is its failure to include an 
adequate mechanism to enforce the decree. Given the slowness of 
federal court intervention, the decree creates an effective and 
continuing incentive for Microsoft to behave anti-competitively. If 
there were an effective enforcement mechanism (such as an adequately 
empowered special master), then that incentive would disappear.
    3. Critics of this proposed settlement argue that one 
significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring 
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install 
competing software and remove Microsoft software does not apply with 
respect to software which has distributed less than one million 
copies. Are you concerned with this limitation?
    I am. I do not see what legitimate interest the limitation 
serves. The aim of the decree generally is to enable Original 
Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) autonomy--to enlist OEMs in the 
competitive process of deciding what bundle of software makes most 
sense for the consumer. Any burden from new software bundled with an 
operating system is borne by OEMs, not Microsoft. By establishing 
that OEMs only have the right to bundle new software if 1,000,000 
consumers have downloaded that software on its own, the decree 
significantly reduces the incentive OEMs have to discover and 
distribute new, competitive software. This is a significant loss in 
potential competition that does not, in my view, have any justifying 
benefit.
January10, 2002
Senator Patrick Leahy,
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6275
    Dear Chairman Leahy:
    Thank you very, much for the opportunity to respond to written 
questions from the members of the United States Senate Judiciary 
Committee. My written responses are attached.
    We appreciate the Committee's attention to this matter. Please 
let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
    Sincerely,
    Mitchell Kertzman
    Chief Executive Officer
    Cc:: Nicolle Puopolo
    Senate Judiciary Committee
    224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510
    Fax: 202.224.9516
    nicolle [email protected]

Date: 1/10/2002 10:43 AM
Sender: Mark Webbink 
To: nicolle puopolo
Priority: Normal
Subject: Microsoft Hearing--Written Questions--Responses 
of Matthew
    Dear Nicolle,
    Attached are the responses provided by Matthew Szulik, President 
and CEO of Red Hat, Inc., to those written questions submitted by 
Senator Leahy in his letter of December 19. I am forwarding a hard 
copy by Federal Express which you should receive tomorrow.
    Mark Webbink
    Sr. VP and General Counsel
    Red Hat, Inc.
    Response to Written Questions
    United States Senate Judiciary Committee
    Hearing regarding ``The Microsoft Settlement:
    Future''
    December 12, 2001
    A Look to the

Hatch #1

    The nine states have chosen to litigate for substantially more 
than the settlement offers. Commentary that presupposes that the 
judge will rule against the nine attorneys general in the pending 
case is tantamount to a request for a denial of due process.
    In the recent hearing in which Judge Kollar denied Microsoft an 
extension of time in which to hear the proposed alternative remedies 
of the nine states, Judge Kollar also found the proposed alternative 
remedies to be within the scope of remedies permitted under the 
order of the Court of Appeals.
    The fact remains that the settlement has many substantial 
structural flaws, each of which can be used independently to 
circumvent the intended remedy, and all of which together provide 
Microsoft with a range of options for continuing their abusive 
behavior and extending their monopoly further. We believe it is 
vital, not just for the states and the people they represent, but to 
the technology industry as a whole, that Microsoft not create a 
monoculture that can collapse catastrophically, but that competition 
be preserved, so that no single failure can destroy everything. The 
fact that further consideration of this matter may take an 
additional two months or two years should not override the public's 
interest in having Microsoft behave in a legally permissable manner.

Hatch #2

    Absolutely. The first issue is to address the obvious technical 
loopholes and structural flaws that have been identified, as well as 
to review a revised settlement to address the states'' primary 
concerns:
    1. Will Microsoft agree to alter its behavior and cease to 
stifle innovation and competition by abusing its monopoly? And,
    2. Will the settlement offer sufficient powers to enforce 
actions against Microsoft if it violates the terms of the 
settlement?
    Clearly, Microsoft has settled before, and clearly those 
settlements proved completely ineffective. No attorney general can, 
in good conscience, agree to a settlement that will lead to 
continued abuse through lack of sufficient prescriptions or lack of 
sufficient enforcement, or both. There are a substantial number of 
legal authorities who believe that the remedies contained in the 
Proposed Final Judgment will do nothing but prompt another round of 
litigation in the future due to their ineffectiveness.

Hatch #3

    A prompt settlement that does nothing except to remove the case 
from the court will accomplish nothing. The imperfections of the 
current settlement are so great that we believe it to offer nothing 
whatsoever to any damaged party, period. As written, the settlement 
will give Microsoft another 5 year ticket to extend and abuse its 
monopoly position, and will be an even more formidable adversary 5 
years hence. One must also consider why this litigation has been so 
long in coming to a resolution. That burden does not lie on the 
Department of Justice and the states. Rather it lies on Microsoft 
for delaying, albeit within the scope of due process, the resolution 
of the matter. Our government must have the fortitude to see such 
matters through to a full and proper conclusion, not cave in to a 
delaying action intended to exhaust patience.

DeWine #1

    The comingling question focuses on a specific symptom, not the 
root cause. The root cause is that Microsoft is able to use 
technical means to create de facto standards. Such standards, when 
placed strategically, are the seeds to future monopoly positions. 
Debating the issues of comingling and removal of code can shed light 
on the subject, but only give us a shadow view of the true 
questions. We believe that remedies proposed by the nine snares 
about providing documentation, licenses, and in some cases, source 
code, provides the kinds of remedies which can then be debated in 
the context of comingling vs. third-party software.

DeWine #2

    The current Proposed Final Judgement offers nothing to foster 
innovation and competition in the market of commercial operating 
systems. In fact, it may do quite the contrary. During the entire 
litigation, Microsoft has been a significantly less fierce 
competitor than they might otherwise have been. If the Proposed 
Final Judgment is imposed on all parties without modification, it 
will actually sanction Microsoft's past abusive behavior, and there 
will be nothing to stop Microsoft from escalating their 
anticompetitive behavior while remaining within the guidelines of 
the Proposed Final Judgement. The proposal offered by the litigating 
states, on the other hand, offers true structural remedies and 
strong enforcement, creating an environment that will foster 
innovation and competition, increasing the ability of all technology 
companies, to invest with greater confidence that they are doing so 
in a fair and free market environment.

Kohl #1

    Not at all. The settlement contains technical and structural 
loopholes that legitimize, rather than remedy, Microsoft's abusive 
monopoly. For example, sectiona III J.1 and III J.2 both grant 
Microsoft sole discretion to determine the applicability of the 
settlement to its own business practices where such practices have 
in the past been used to extend and abuse monopoly power.

[[Page 30276]]

Thus, the settlement is little more than an opportunity for 
Microsoft to change its own behavior based on its conscience, not a 
proscription from the courts. Microsoft has demonstrated, in the 
case of previous settlements, that they are already acting out their 
conscience and that the technology industry, the states, and the 
public are not safe from such actions.

Kohl #2 (a and b)

    We are strongly supportive of the nine states'' 
comprehensive alternative to the proposed settlement. We believe 
that the Proposed Final Judgment as currently drafted cannot easily 
be fixed by simply fixing errors and ommisions, instead, a 
comprehesive alternative, written by the plaintiffs rather than the 
defendant, should be considered.

Kohl #3

    There are over 100,000 software companies in existence today 
(source: Craig Mundie, Microsoft SVP of Advanced Development 
debating Red Hat CTO Michael Tiemann at the O'Reilly Open Source 
Conference, July 2001), yet only 500 software companies in the 
Software 500. Of those 500, the vast majority ship fewer than one 
million copies of anything. Thus, setting the bar at one million 
copies excludes more than 99.9% of all software companies from 
receiving any relief whatsoever with respect to this part of the 
settlement. Of course, several other parts of the settlement also 
allow Microsoft to further expand and abuse their monopoly position, 
so the question by itself is more symptomatic rather than 
fundamental.

Kohl #4

    This Proposed Final Judgment will make it harder, not easier to 
compete, because it will legitimize, rather than remedy Microsoft's 
abusive behavior. While we believe that on a daily basis Microsoft 
behaves in ways inconsistent with this settlement (using retaliation 
or threats of retaliation or coercion against protected classes 
defined by the settlement), they have been somewhat restrained while 
the litigation has been pending, if the settlement is accepted, 
Microsoft will be able to continue the expansion and abuse of their 
monopoly with impunity, because the settlement actually allows that] 
Yes, they may have to change some behavior, but fundamentally the 
proposed settlement gives them all they need to maintain their 
current status quo. Further litigation is a very expensive way to 
reduce a defendant's capacity to do further damage, and we would 
certainly prefer a settlement that actually addresses and remedies 
Microsoft's abuses. But as written, this proposed settlement 
addresses and remedies nothing of substance, while giving Microsoft 
the ``all clear'' to resume its unhealthy control of 
innovation and competition. It should be of interest that Red Hat, 
in markets where Microsoft does not enjoy a monopoly, has been able 
to compete on technology, performance, and cost. At the same time, 
Red Hat has elected not to enter the Intel-platform based desktop 
market, viewing such an effort as futile given Microsoft's monopoly 
position. Nothing in the Proposed Final Judgment would cause Red Hat 
to alter that position.
    Received: from mailsimsl.senate.gov ([156.33.203.10]) by 
ailexch.senate.gov with SMTP
    (IMA internet Exchange 3.13) id 000A2E2B; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
10:43:33 -0500Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com by 
mailsimsl.senate.gov (Sun Internet Mail Server 
sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with SMTP id 
<[email protected]> for 
[email protected]; 
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:45:57 -0500 (EST)
    Received: from redhat.com (mwebbink.meridian.redhat.com 
[172.16.45.141]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with 
ESMTP id g0AFhNw24650 for 
; Thu, 10 
Jan 2002 10:43:23 -0500
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:43:28 -0500
From: Mark Webbink 
Subject: Microsoft Hearing--Written Questions--Responses 
of Matthew
Szulik
To: [email protected]
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: MULTIPART/MIXED; 
BOUNDARY=''Boundary--(ID--hOVX+e/hb79ikvpiSed5
-W)''
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.5)
Gecko/2001t012
X-Accept-Language: en-us

Responses of Charles F. Rule to Judiciary Committee Questions

Leahy Questions

    Q1. In your 1997 testimony on the first Microsoft-Department of 
Justice consent decree, you said that ``it seems a bit 
shortsighted (or perhaps even hysterical) to believe that Microsoft 
is such a juggernaut that putting extra sand in its saddle bags is 
justified to even up the odds for the competition.'' In light 
of the fact that the Court of Appeals found that Microsoft violated 
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, abusing its operating system monopoly 
to the detriment of consumers, do you still believe that it is 
``hysterical'' to inquire into, and seek to end, the 
company'santicompetitive practices?
    A. As you note, the statement in my 1997 testimony refers to the 
enforcement action brought by the government alleging that Microsoft 
had violated the terms of its 1995 consent decree. Microsoft was 
ultimately vindicated in that action, with the Court of Appeals 
finding that Microsoft had done nothing to violate the terms of that 
decree. In this most recent action, the Court of Appeals did 
conclude that certain of Microsoft's practices amounted to monopoly 
maintenance that violates section 2 and, as my statement to the 
Committee in December of 2001 explains, the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment addresses all that conduct and much more. Having said that, 
it is worth noting, first, that the Department and states have never 
alleged, much less proved, that Microsoft achieved its position in 
the market illegally. Moreover, as the Court of Appeals held, 
``the District Court expressly did not adopt the position that 
Microsoft would have lost its position in the OS market but for its 
anticompetitive behavior.'' United States v. Microsoft Corp., 
253 F.3d 34, 107 (3d Cir. 2001). Second, no matter how one chooses 
to characterize Microsoft's (or any other company's) competitive 
prowess, it is never appropriate for the antitrust law--nor is 
it good policy generally--to put ``sand in the saddle 
bags'' of one competitor simply because it is more successful 
for reasons of skill, foresight or luck. Prohibiting companies from 
engaging in illegal practices and requiring them to compete on the 
merits is clearly critical, but ``rigging'' or trying to 
alter outcomes of competition on the merits is a bad idea.
    Q2. The Tunney Act requires that Microsoft file with the 
district court ``any and all written or oral communications by 
or on behalf of [Microsoft]... with any officer or employee of the 
United States concerning or relevant to such proposal, except that 
any such communications made by counsel of record alone with the 
Attorney General or the employees of the Department of Justice alone 
shall be excluded from the requirements of this subsection.'' 
You have recently been named as counsel of record,'' do you 
believe that this provision requires disclosure of communications by 
you to the Justice Department prior to the date upon which you 
became counsel of record? Do you believe it requires disclosure of 
contacts made on behalf of Microsoft to members of Congress? How do 
you define power in a way that would be very difficult for courts to 
redress in the future without recourse to draconian structural 
relief. Finally, as we saw with the 1995 consent decree, having a 
seriously flawed settlement can sometimes be worse than having no 
settlement at all, insofar as it lulls enforcement agencies and the 
public into a false belief that anticompetitive conduct has been 
checked while it m fact continues, compounding the under1ying 
problems in the marketplace. Some in the industry have argued that 
but for the pendency of the current litigation, and the public and 
judicial scrutiny that resulted, Microsoft's conduct in the 
marketplace would have been even worse.
``concerning or relevant to'' the proposed settlement? Do 
you believe that it covers anything more than the actual 
negotiations of the decree?
    A. First, I personally have been counsel of record for Microsoft 
since the appeals of Judge Jackson's decision began in 1999. (For 
those interested, they should review the briefs filed with the 
Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.) Moreover, since Microsoft's 
negotiations with the Department of Justice included representatives 
of the Plaintiff states, the Tunney Act disclosure includes 
disclosure of all the negotiations of which I was a part.
    Second, the Tunney Act only requires disclosure of contacts with 
the Executive Branch. To my knowledge, disclosure filings in Tunney 
Act proceedings (including AT&T's disclosure, for example) are 
limited to contacts with the Executive Branch.
    Third, there is no reason to believe that the phrase 
``concerning or relevant to'' has any

[[Page 30277]]

meaning other than the standard definition of the words. Webster's 
New Collegiate Dictionary indicates that ``relating to'' 
and ``regarding'' are synonymous for 
``concerning.'' ``Relevant'' is defined as 
``having significant and demonstrable bearing upon the matter 
at hand.'' Accordingly, and consistent with the plain meaning 
of all the words of the statutory provision you quote, Microsoft's 
disclosure included reportable contacts by Microsoft or its 
representatives with the Executive Branch that related to the 
company's negotiations of the settlement with the Department and the 
Plaintiff states.
    Q3. Microsoft's retaliation against 0EMs that resisted carrying 
Microsoft's products featured largely in the evidence at trial, and 
the proposed settlement seems to address the Court of Appeals'' 
holding that such retaliation violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. 
While the settlement does state that Microsoft cannot retaliate 
against an OEM that is supporting a competing operating system or 
middleware there is also a ``carve-out'' to that 
restriction, which permits Microsoft to provide ``consideration 
to any OEM with respect to any Microsoft product or service where 
that consideration is commensurate with the absolute level or amount 
of that OEM's development, distribution, promotion, or licensing of 
that Microsoft product or service.'' This seems to permit 
Microsoft to reward OEMs based on whether they carry Microsoft's 
products or software; this is just the flip side of 
``retaliation.'' How is this different from punishing 
those who fail to accede to Microsoft's demands ?
    A. It is important to note that the Court of Appeals did not 
conclude that Microsoft ``retaliated'' against any OEM for 
shipping any competing software (or for any other reason). Moreover, 
the anti-retaliation provisions of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment contain no ``carve-outs.'' Rather, Microsoft may 
not retaliate against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs (independent hardware 
vendors) because they develop, etc., software that competes with the 
Windows PC operating systems or Microsoft Middleware. The provision 
prohibits ``retaliation'' as that word is commonly 
understood and defined. The provisos in the relevant sections of the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment do not ``carve-out'' 
exceptional circumstances in which Microsoft may retaliate against 
these third parties for their development, etc., of competing 
software; rather, those provisos simply make certain that in the 
future no one will try to extend the prohibition to certain conduct 
that is legitimate and not generally understood to be 
``retaliation.'' So for example, the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment is written to ensure that it will not be possible to 
twist the common meaning of ``retaliation'' to cover 
situations in which Microsoft seeks legitimately to protect its 
intellectual property against infringement. The decree also makes 
clear that legitimate efforts by Microsoft to enforce a contract, 
including through rights of termination against an OEM that has 
breached the contract by, for example, refusing to pay royalties due 
and owing to Microsoft, though Microsoft agreed that it would give 
an OEM an offer to cure any breach at least two times during the 
term of the contract (which currently is one {time} ,ear) are 
allowed under the Revised Proposed Final Judgment.
    Also, as your question indicates, the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment makes clear that Microsoft is not ``retaliating'' 
if it provides ten times more marketing support to one OEM than to 
another OEM that ships only one-tenth the number of Windows 
operating systems compared to the first OEM. The notion that 
Microsoft has to provide the same level of support to all third 
parties without regard to the level of development, distribution, 
promotion or licensing of Microsoft's products or even without 
regard to whether they carry Microsoft's products or software at all 
seems absurd. One doubts that OEMs like Dell and Compaq that each 
year sell millions of PCs installed with a Windows PC operating 
system would think it fair and reasonable if Microsoft could provide 
them with no more support than a small OEM in East Asia that 
installs Windows on none of its PCs. Even without regard to the 
fairness and reasonableness of such decisions, decisions concerning 
the allocation of finite resources are what every business, 
regardless of its size, legitimately must make. It renders the word 
``retaliation'' meaningless to suggest that such 
legitimate decisions would be proscribed by an ``anti-
retaliation'' provision. However, the fact that Microsoft's 
competitors would even make such a suggestion indicates why the 
company negotiated for, and why the Department and settling states 
agreed to, the clarification.
    Q4. Microsoft is given 12 months to come into compliance with 
this proposed settlement; what tasks must it actually undertake that 
will require so much time?
    A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment does not become binding 
and the court's powers of enforcement do not pertain until the court 
enters the judgment (hence the Department's concern, as we 
understand it, that the Tunney Act proceeding not be delayed). 
Nevertheless, Microsoft has stipulated that it will abide by the 
terms of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment from the date it was 
submitted to the court for approval. The stipulation did give 
Microsoft until December 16, 2001, to begin its voluntary compliance 
with the Revised Proposed Final Judgment; however, with the 
exception of three substantive provisions of the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment which require substantial engineering work, Microsoft 
is currently complying with the provisions of the decree. With the 
exception of the creation of the Technical Committee (IV.B) and the 
term of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment (i.e., when it will 
expire) (the timing of both is measured from the date the decree is 
entered by the court), the clock begins to run on Microsoft's 
obligation to implement the provisions of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment on the date it was submitted to the court (i.e., November 
6, 2001).
    With respect to the three substantive sections that have not yet 
become effective, namely sections III.D, III.E, and III.H., all 
three require Microsoft to engage in substantial engineering work. 
That work is currently well underway.
    In order to comply with section III.D., which requires Microsoft 
to disclose APIs and related Documentation used by Microsoft 
Middleware to interoperate with Windows 2000 or Windows XP (and 
subsequent versions of PC operating systems), Microsoft must do 
substantial work to identify the relevant interfaces, determine 
whether they have already been disclosed and, if not, develop the 
necessary documentation so third parties will understand what 
functions they perform and how to use them. Microsoft must disclose 
the APIs and documentation when it releases the first Service Pack 
for Windows XP.
    Microsoft may also be required to reengineer Microsoft 
Middleware, as well as Windows 2000 and Windows XP in order to 
comply with III.D. Because Microsoft has strong commercial 
incentives to issue the first Service Pack of a new operating system 
as soon as possible and delay of its issuance (and thus delay of the 
obligation to disclose APIs) will be costly to Microsoft, the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment provides a strong incentive for 
Microsoft expeditiously to complete the necessary engineering work 
in order to comply with III.D by in effect holding up the release of 
the Windows XP Service Pack until disclosure of the relevant APIs 
and documentation under III.D is completed.
    In the case of the ``Add/Remove'' utility and 
``defaults'' that Microsoft must design and make available 
to end-users and OEMs under section III.H, significant changes to 
Windows XP and Windows 2000 must be engineered and made available in 
subsequent versions of the operating systems. Providing the ship 
date of the first service pack of Windows XP as the deadline for 
that work similarly provides a strong incentive to Microsoft to 
complete the necessary engineering work expeditiously.
    In the case of both III.D and III.H, the expectation is that 
they will become effective well before November 6 of this year 
(i.e., twelve months after submission of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment to the court). At the time the decree was being negotiated, 
the company was planning to try to release the first service pack 
for Windows XP (a major engineering undertaking in itself) by the 
middle of this year. While Microsoft hopes that timing will not slip 
significantly, a very substantial engineering burden was imposed on 
Microsoft by the decree and Microsoft advised the Department and the 
Plaintiff states of that fact during the negotiations. As a result 
the twelve months was put in as a ``back stop'' to provide 
the Department and the settling states with an absolute drop dead 
date for compliance with those two provisions. Everyone expects the 
first service pack of Windows XP to be released well in advance of 
November 2002.
    Section III.E requires Microsoft to identify, document, and make 
available for third-party licensing Communications Protocols that 
allow a Windows server operating system to interoperate natively 
with Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
    As explained in my statement to the Committee, the so-called 
``client-server interop'' issue is outside the scope of 
the Court of Appeals decision, but based on Microsoft's expectation 
that the Plaintiff states would settle if section III.E were

[[Page 30278]]

included in the proposed relief, Microsoft reluctantly agreed to it. 
However, the provision requires Microsoft to license proprietary 
information that as a general matter Microsoft previously did not 
license to third parties. Again, it is a significant undertaking to 
inventory all the protocols, to develop the documentation for third 
parties, and otherwise to do the work necessary to license the 
protocols to third parties. In recognition of the scope of that 
work, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment provides Microsoft with 
nine months to accomplish the work (which unlike sections III.D and 
III.H, is not related to the work being done to develop the first 
service pack of Windows XP). Thus, starling on August 6, 2002, the 
relevant Communications Protocols will for the first time be 
available for third-party licensing.
    Q5. The proposed settlement agreement provides that Microsoft's 
disclosure of APIs and documentation for an updated version of 
Windows in a ``timely manner ``, and ``timely 
manner'' seems to be defined as the time at which Microsoft 
makes the new Windows version available to 150, 000 or more beta 
testers. Does Microsoft routinely send beta test versions to so many 
testers? When has it done so in the past? Can't Microsoft avoid the 
disclose provision by simply limiting the number of beta testers?
    A. In negotiating the decree, both sides understood the need for 
setting the obligation to disclose APIs and documentation 
sufficiently late in the development cycle of new products so that 
Microsoft is able to develop, test, and modify the APIs as well as 
the documentation of the APIs based on feedback the company gets 
from third-party testers included in early beta releases. Once the 
APIs and documentation are ``disclosed'' under section 
III.D, they need to be ``hardened'' or fixed because at 
that point third parties, particularly middleware vendors, will be 
writing their own software that calls on those APIs and will be 
frustrated and may be put to added expense if the APIs are modified 
significantly before the wide commercial release of the Microsoft 
platform product. On the other hand, the United States and the 
settling states insisted that the disclosure occur before the 
commercial release of the product so that third parties can begin 
designing products that take advantage of the APIs at the time or 
shortly after the time the Windows PC operating system containing 
the APIs or the Microsoft Middleware is released commercially. In 
the case of Windows PC operating systems, historically the last 
major beta release before commercial release has involved 
substantially in excess of 150,000 beta testers; for example, the 
last major beta release of Windows XP was distributed to more than 
500,000 beta testers.
    It is inconceivable that Microsoft would forego beta testing or 
would limit the number of beta testers of a Windows PC operating 
system in order to avoid section III.D. Quite apart from the 
seriousness with which Microsoft takes its responsibilities under 
court orders, a failure by Microsoft to subject its products to 
extensive beta testing would threaten to exact a heavy toll on 
Microsoft's goodwill. Without extensive beta testing, Microsoft 
would significantly increase the risk of shipping products with 
major bugs that would engender consumer ill will. It is simply not 
credible for Microsoft's competitors to assert that Microsoft would 
subject its business to such a threat and raise questions about its 
compliance with the decree in order to achieve a temporary 
``head-start'' over competing middleware vendors. The 
Committee should keep in mind that nowhere in its decision did the 
Court of Appeals affirm a finding that Microsoft ever failed to 
disclose APIs or otherwise manipulated disclosure of APIs to give 
Microsoft middleware an illegal advantage over the competition. 
Moreover, case law suggests that a monopolist is fully entitled to 
gain the competitive advantage of its own research and development 
work by not releasing information about it that might be needed by 
developers of competing products until after the public release of 
the company's new products.
    Q6. If a PC manufacturer decides that it would like to remove 
Windows Moviemaker, is that action protected from the ban on 
retaliation in the proposed settlement? If a representative of a PC 
manufacturer or a software developer testified before this Committee 
or before the district court in the on-going states'' case, 
would the settlement ban retaliation against them ?
    A. Windows Moviemaker is not in the list of Microsoft Middleware 
Products, nor should it be in light of the Court of Appeals 
decision. While the United States and the settling states insisted 
on a very broad (Microsoft believes, an overly broad) definition of 
``middleware,'' only a definition that essentially 
included all PC software would suffice to include features of 
Windows PC operating systems such as Windows Moviemaker and third-
party software that performs similar functionality. The theory of 
the government's case and the rationale of the Court of Appeals 
decision is that Microsoft took certain actions (the twelve that the 
Court of Appeals affirmed) which were designed to exclude Netscape 
Navigator and Sun's Java technology from the market because 
separately or together they represented threats to Microsoft's 
position in the market for PC operating systems. That analysis had 
plausibility because the Court of Appeals concluded that, by 
exposing a broad range of general purpose APIs that developers could 
use to create applications and by having the capability of running 
on multiple PC operating systems, Navigator and Java had the 
potential to serve as platforms that could compete with the Windows 
platform. By contrast, software for displaying and editing movies 
does not serve as a platform for applications development.
    Moreover, the issue of Microsoft's unwillingness to allow OEMs 
to remove access to the Internet Explorer functionality was only 
anticompetitive because the Court of Appeals accepted the district 
court's finding that it impaired Netscape's ability to persuade OEMs 
to install and ship Navigator on their PCs. The government did not 
challenge and the Court of Appeals did not conclude that, by itself, 
Microsoft's practice of continually incorporating new features and 
functionalities in successive versions of Windows PC operating 
systems and insisting that OEMs install and ship Windows with its 
features and functionalities intact violated the antitrust laws. To 
the contrary, even under the previous Administration the Department 
has recognized, as did the Court of Appeals'' opinion, that 
such integration in general is potentially beneficial to software 
developers who take advantage of the new APIs and consumers. (That 
insight is what led the Court of Appeals to hold that allegations 
that software integration amounts to an illegal tie-in must be 
analyzed under the Rule of Reason and, on that basis, to reverse 
Judge Jackson's conclusion that the integration of IE into Windows 
98 was per se unlawful.)
    Against this background, it should be no surprise that the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment is silent concerning Microsoft's 
licensing policies with respect to the ability of OEMs to remove 
non-middleware features of Windows such as Windows Moviemaker. 
Indeed, any effort to include in this decree a provision that 
precluded Microsoft from integrating new features and functionality 
into Windows and ensuring that end users get all the features and 
functionalities of Windows, at least other than Microsoft 
middleware, would be directly contrary to the holding of the Court 
of Appeals. Microsoft does in its licenses with OEMs require them to 
ship Windows with all its non-middleware features intact. (OEMs, 
however, are free to add third party software of any kind, including 
digital media manipulation applications to computers before they 
ship, and many do.) An OEM that removed Windows Moviemaker before 
shipping Windows XP on its PCs would be in violation of its license 
agreement. As explained in response to question 3 above, 
legitimately seeking to enforce a valid license or contractual 
provision that does not violate the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
would not be ``retaliation'' in any conventional sense of 
that word.
    As for the question concerning the possibility of Microsoft 
retaliating against those who have testified against Microsoft, 
there is absolutely no basis for suspecting that Microsoft would 
even consider doing such a thing. Certainly the potential for such 
retaliation was not part of the plaintiffs'' case and formed no 
part of the decision of the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment makes clear (sections III.A.3 and 
III.F.1.b) that Microsoft cannot retaliate against any OEM, ISV or 
IHV, including those who testified against Microsoft, because that 
third party chooses to exercise any of the options provided by the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment.
    Q7. Software developers that take advantage of the middleware 
API disclosure are required by the proposed settlement to cross-
license their products back to Microsoft. Presumably this is of 
great benefit to Microsoft, but how does it fit into remedying the 
antitrust violations found in court?
    A. Northing in the Revised Proposed Final Judgment requires 
software developers to license their products to Microsoft, whether 
or not the developers choose to use the new middleware APIs that 
Microsoft is obligated

[[Page 30279]]

to disclose. Paragraph III.I. requires Microsoft to license to 
certain third parties any Microsoft intellectual property that is 
necessary for them to exercise the options and alternatives provided 
under the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. Subpart 5 states that 
those parties ``may be required'' to license to Microsoft 
any intellectual property they may have relating to the exercise of 
such options or alternatives on ``reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory terms'' so that Microsoft can comply with the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment by offering those options and 
alternatives to those parties without running afoul of intellectual 
property law. This provision simply facilitates implementation of 
the decree provisions.
    Q8. The provision of the proposed settlement addressing the 
availability of server communications protocols refers to protocols 
that are ``used to interoperate natively, i.e., without the 
addition of software code to the client operating system product, 
with a Microsoft server operating system product.'' I am 
confused about the meaning of ``natively, ``and the 
Competitive Impact Statement does not clarify it. As the issue of 
Microsoft ``s possible abuses in the server arena are even now 
before the European Union's antitrust enforcement branch, ] am 
interested to know precisely what your proposal accomplishes, and 
whether it addresses the EU's concerns as well?
    A. The ``client-server interoperability'' provision 
(section III.E) is one example where the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment addresses an issue that has nothing to do with the Court of 
Appeals'' decision. Microsoft agreed to that provision in order 
to settle this case and move forward in a positive posture with the 
federal and state governments. In particular, Microsoft agreed to 
the provision based on its expectation that if it did the states 
would agree to the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. Section III.E. 
requires Microsoft to disclose Communications Protocols used by 
Windows to interoperate with Microsoft server operating systems. The 
term ``natively'' means that the interoperation is 
directly between a Windows PC operating system such as Windows XP 
and a Microsoft server operating system product as opposed to 
communications between a Microsoft server and a program running on 
top of such PC operating systems. As Microsoft understood the 
concern that the provision was designed to address, the plaintiffs 
wanted to prevent Microsoft from leveraging its position in PC 
operating systems to harm competition in server operating systems. I 
have not consulted with the EU on either the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment or its investigation, and so cannot represent whether or 
not this provision addresses any concerns the EU may have.
    Q9. The proposed settlement's prohibition on retaliation against 
software developers creates an exception from that prohibition for 
agreements that ``are reasonably necessary to and of reasonable 
scope and duration'' in connection with obliging a developer to 
use, distribute, promote, or develop software for Microsoft. What do 
you envision that exception to cover, and more importantly, what 
does it leave within the ban against retaliation?
    A. This question seems to reflect a misreading of section III.F 
of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment. The ``exception'' 
for reasonably ancillary contractual limitations applies to 
subsection III.F.2 (which prohibits Microsoft from conditioning the 
grant of consideration on an ISV's refraining from developing, etc., 
any competing software) rather than to the ``anti-
retaliation'' prohibition of III.F. 1. In response to question 
3, I have explained that the anti-retaliation provisions of the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment contain no ``carve-outs'' 
or ``exceptions.''
    The exception language in section III.F.2 simply makes clear 
that Microsoft may engage in the routine business practice of 
collaborating with third parties that wish to use, distribute or 
promote Microsoft software or to develop software together with 
Microsoft. To the extent that Microsoft enters into such agreements, 
it may place limitations on the third parties if the limitations are 
carefully tailored and reasonably necessary in relation to the bona 
fide contractual arrangement between Microsoft and the third party. 
The law has long recognized that legitimate ancillary restraints are 
often critical to procompetitive collaborations, and this exception 
simply reflects that recognition. There is nothing in the Court of 
Appeals decision or in public policy to suggest that such an 
exception is inappropriate. Indeed, in the absence of this 
provision, Microsoft would be reluctant or unable to enter into many 
procompetitive collaborations--a result that would restrict 
opportunities for third parties and potential benefits for 
consumers.
    Q10. The proposed settlement permits the removal of the Internet 
Explorer icon, but as I understand it, even if a user chooses to 
remove Internet Explorer, IE will continue to pop up in MyDocuments, 
MyMusic, and MyPictures. Is this understanding correct, and if so, 
how can a user ever be free of Internet Explorer?
    A. The creation of default opportunities for third-party 
middleware (section III.H.2) is another area where the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment actually goes beyond the decision of the 
Court of Appeals. The whole concept of ``defaults'' is a 
reflection of how Microsoft historically has chosen to design its 
operating systems to provide extensive opportunities for non-
Microsoft software, even when that software duplicates functions 
already provided by Windows. Generally, operating systems 
(Microsoft's as well as those of its competitors) are a set of 
integrated functionalities and are designed to rely on and invoke 
those internal functionalities to perform various tasks. So for 
example, when the end user asks Windows to perform a task that 
requires displaying information in HTML (the format of the Web), 
Windows invokes its internal HTML display software, which is 
Internet Explorer. (And, of course, by utilizing the Windows API 
set, ISVs can also invoke the Windows HTML display software). Over 
time, the designers of Windows have chosen to give ISVs the 
opportunity to take over certain functions--typically to open 
and display certain file types (e.g., .him files)--in 
circumstances in which the designer believes will enhance the end-
user experience. On the other hand, if allowing a third party to 
take over a function would disrupt the integrated experience for an 
end user, Windows generally does not provide a third-party default 
opportunity.
    In the case against Microsoft, the Department and the Plaintiff 
states alleged that Microsoft's design of Windows to 
``override'' the OEMs'' or end-users'' choice of 
a default browser in certain circumstances (for example, in the case 
of Windows Help and Windows Explorer) amounted to illegal monopoly 
maintenance. (As explained above, it is more accurate to say that 
Microsoft in designing Windows chose not to create a default 
opportunity with respect to certain aspects of Windows where an 
integrated experience seemed more appropriate.) While the plaintiffs 
prevailed on this point in the district court, this was one of those 
aspects of the district court's decision that the Court of Appeals 
expressly reversed. United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 67 
(DCCir. 2001). The Court of Appeals ruled that ``Microsoft may 
not be held liable for this aspect of its product design.''
    Notwithstanding this clear Microsoft victory, the United States 
and the settling states insisted that Microsoft be required to 
design future versions of its Windows PC operating systems in such a 
way as to guarantee OEMs and third-party vendors of middleware 
default opportunities in those circumstances described in section 
III.H.2. Those opportunities apply not just to Internet browsing 
software but to any third party software that meets the definition 
of middleware. To some extent that may require Microsoft to design 
the operating system in a way that allows third-party middleware to 
interject itself in ways that disrupt the integrated end-user 
experience; however, Microsoft agreed to III.H.2, despite the 
absence of a basis for it in the Court of Appeals decision, in order 
to settle the case.
    Q11. In 1995, the Department and Microsoft entered into a 
Consent Decree. Two years later, the Department sued Microsoft for 
contempt of the Decree when Microsoft and the Department disagreed 
over the meaning and correct interpretation of certain provisions of 
the Decree, including the meaning of the word 
``integrate'' as that term was used in the Decree. Given 
the prior litigation between the Department and Microsoft over the 
proper interpretation of the 1995 Consent Decree, do you agree that 
Microsoft and the Department should have a common, explicit 
understanding of the meaning and scope of this proposed Final 
Judgment before it is entered?
    A. The Department and Microsoft entered into their first consent 
decree in 1994, and Microsoft began its compliance immediately. The 
decree was not approved by the court until 1995. The Department and 
Microsoft had a common understanding of that decree, but over time 
the Department personnel involved in the negotiations left the 
Department and new personnel instituted the litigation in 1997. In 
1998, the Court of Appeals confirmed that Microsoft's interpretation 
of the decree was likely

[[Page 30280]]

correct, and that Microsoft had not violated the decree.
    It is important that Microsoft and the Department have a common 
understanding of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment to avoid 
unnecessary litigation in the future. Microsoft is confident that 
the extensive negotiations in this case have resulted in a clear 
agreement between the parties involved. Indeed, a great deal of the 
mediation process was devoted to developing technical concepts and 
clear language to ensure that there was a clear meeting of the minds 
concerning Microsoft's obligations under the decree. While Judge 
Jackson's now-vacated June 2000 judgment may seem clear to a non-
technical lawyer, it is largely technical ``gibberish,'' 
and the reasons for many of the changes in the language in analogous 
provisions of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment were to make the 
provisions meaningful and to avoid the sorts of disputes about which 
you speak. Because the software design and disclosure issues 
addressed by the Revised Proposed Final Judgment are inherently 
complex and technical (far more so than any other antitrust decree 
of which I am aware), it is no surprise that the language of the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment Would seem complex. However, the 
language of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is infinitely 
clearer and less ambiguous than that of Judge Jackson's order (or 
the proposed remedies of the non-settling states), and thus 
infinitely less likely to engender never-ending disputes between the 
United States and Microsoft. Moreover, the Technical Committee is 
designed to ensure prompt resolution of any issues that may arise 
over the application of the technical language to specific factual 
circumstances.
    Q12. Do you agree that the meaning and scope of the proposed 
Final Judgment as agreed upon by the Department and Microsoft should 
be precise, unambiguous and fully articulated so that the public at 
large can understand and rely on your mutual understanding of the 
Judgment?
    A. Yes, that is an important goal; however, the ultimate test is 
whether the language is understood and meaningful to the parties and 
to the courts which must interpret it. Given the government's 
objective of imposing prohibitions and obligations concerning 
Microsoft's design of the Windows PC operating system and Microsoft 
middleware, it was essential, as explained in response to question 
11, that the Revised Proposed Final Judgment use technical terms 
that may be foreign to the lexicon of most members of the public. 
Any effort to make the language easily understood to those unskilled 
or unfamiliar with software technology would be a prescription for 
enforcement disaster. Given the inherently complex and technical 
subject matter of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, I am 
convinced that the language is as ``precise, unambiguous and 
fully articulated'' as is possible.
    A knowing comparison to the language in Judge Jackson's judgment 
or the proposed remedies of the non-settling states makes clear how 
vastly better a job the Revised Proposed Final Judgment does in 
providing a precise, meaningful, and enforceable set of provisions 
than either of those alternatives.
    Q13. If Microsoft and the Department were to disagree about the 
correct interpretation of one or more important provisions of the 
proposed Final Judgment, would you consider that to be a potentially 
serious problem?
    A. There is no one who wants to avoid disputes over the correct 
interpretation of the decree more than Microsoft. Even though 
Microsoft was ultimately vindicated in its interpretation of the 
1995 decree when a dispute arose between Microsoft and the 
Department, the process of obtaining that vindication was very 
painful and costly to the company. One of Microsoft's principal 
goals in the negotiations that led to the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment was to develop concepts and language on which Microsoft and 
the plaintiffs had a clear meeting of the minds and which could be 
understood and fully complied with by the company and its thousands 
of employees. As explained in response to earlier questions, 
measured by that standard, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment does 
a vastly better job than any of the alternatives of which I am 
aware.
    Q14. Do you agree that it would be highly desirable to identify 
any significant disagreement between Microsoft and the Department 
over the correct interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment now, 
before the Judgment is entered by the Court, rather than through 
protracted litigation as in the case of the 1995 Consent Decree?
    A. While it is certainly preferable to identify disagreements 
before rather than after the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is 
entered, we spent countless hours negotiating this agreement with 
the Department and the states with the help of court-appointed 
mediators, and are confident that we have a clear agreement. As I 
explained in response to the previous questions, one of Microsoft's 
principal objectives in the negotiation was to develop a decree that 
would avoid the sort of litigation, which Microsoft ultimately won, 
that arose out of the 1995 Consent Decree. (I should also note that 
the 1997 litigation was resolved by the Court of Appeals, in 
Microsoft's favor, within nine months of the Department's petition 
for relief.) It was imperative that we have a decree with a clear 
meaning to both the Department and Microsoft that would retain its 
clarity even as the personnel in the Department changes. That said, 
it is probably impossible to craft language that is so clear that 
disputes over its meaning are inconceivable. However, while I would 
not contend that the negotiations achieved perfection, the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment is significantly less prone to dispute than 
the alternatives, such as Judge Jackson's now-vacated June 2000 
judgment or the non-settling states'' proposed relief. 
Moreover, to the extent legitimate disputes do arise in the future 
that cannot be resolved by other means, the courts remain our 
society's best vehicle for resolving such disputes.
    Q15. Can the public at large rely upon the Department's 
Competitive Impact Statement as the definitive interpretation of the 
nature and scope of Microsoft's obligations under the Final 
Judgment? If not, then what is the mutually understood and agreed-
upon interpretation of the meaning and scope of Microsoft's 
obligations under the Final Judgment?
    A. The Competitive Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to the 
Department's obligations under the Tunney Act. It has the same legal 
force that the Tunney Act gives any Competitive Impact Statement.
    Q16. Does the Competitive Impact Statement accurately reflect 
Microsoft's interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment?
    A. Microsoft did not participate in the preparation of the 
Competitive Impact Statement. The language of the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment was carefully negotiated and means what it says. The 
Department's Competitive Impact Statement has the same legal force 
and effect in this case as in any other. Beyond that I cannot go in 
light of the facts that the Tunney Act proceeding is currently under 
way before Judge Kollar-Kotelly and that the non-settling states are 
attempting to raise various issues concerning the Competitive Impact 
Statement as part of the ongoing ``remedies'' litigation 
also before Judge Kollar-Kotelly. Once that litigation is completed, 
I may be in a better position to discuss these issues with the 
Committee.
    Q17. Recognizing that the Department's Competitive Impact 
Statement cannot address every conceivable issue that may arise in 
the future concerning the proposed Final Judgment, is there anything 
stated in the Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft 
disagrees?
    A. See the answer to question 16.
    Q18. Has Microsoft informed the Department that it has any 
disagreement with the Department's interpretation of the Final 
Judgment as set forth in the Competitive Impact Statement?
    A. See the answer to question 16.
    Q19. Does Microsoft disagree with anything stated in the 
Department's Competitive Impact Statement concerning the meaning and 
scope of the proposed Final Judgment?
    A. See the answer to question 16.
    Q20. Will you commit on behalf of Microsoft to inform this 
Committee in writing of each and every statement in the Department's 
Competitive Impact Statement with which Microsoft disagrees? Will 
you commit to do so within the next 15 days so that the public can 
understand what disagreements Microsoft has with the Competitive 
Impact Statement before the Tunney Act comment period expires ?
    A. See the answer to question 16.
    Q21. Was there anything in Assistant Attorney General James' 
testimony before this Committee concerning the meaning an d 
interpretation of the proposed Final Judgment with which Microsoft 
disagrees?
    A. I thought the testimony of AAG James accurately described the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment, and nothing I have seen or heard 
since November 6th leads me to change my view that the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment reflects a clear meeting of the minds 
between Microsoft on the one hand and the Department and the 
settling states on the other.
    Q22. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at 
page 38 that.' ``if a

[[Page 30281]]

Windows Operating System Product is using all the Communications 
Protocols that it contains to communicate with two servers, one of 
which is a Microsoft server and one of which is a competing server 
that has licensed and fully implemented all the Communications 
Protocols, the Windows Operating System Product should behave 
identically in its interaction with both the Microsoft and non-
Microsoft servers.'' Does Microsoft agree that this accurately 
states one objective of Microsoft's obligations under section III(E) 
of the proposed Final Judgment?
    A. See the answer to question 16.
    Q23. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at 
page 36 that: ``Section 1II.E. will prevent Microsoft from 
incorporating into its Windows Operating System Products features or 
functionality with which its own server software can interoperate, 
and then refusing to make available information about those features 
that non-Microsoft servers need in order to have the same 
opportunities to interoperate with the Windows Operating System 
Product.'' Does Microsoft agree that this accurately states one 
objective of Microsoft's obligations under section Ill(E) of the 
proposed Final Judgment?
    A. See the answer to question 16.
    Q24. The Department's Competitive Impact Statement states at 
page 37-37 that.' ``Because the Communications Protocols 
must be licensed for use' by third parties, the licensing 
necessarily must be accompanied by sufficient disclosure to allow 
licensees fully to utilize all the functionality of each 
Communications Protocol.'' Does Microsoft agree that this 
accurately states one objective of Microsoft's obligations under 
section Ill(E) of the proposed Final Judgment?
    A. See the answer to question 16.

Heatch Questions.

    Q1. Concerns have been voiced about potential 
``loopholes'' that might be created by ambiguities in 
various definitions that are fundamental to determining Microsoft's 
responsibilities under the settlement. Do you agree that the 
``Competitive Impact Statement'' accurately memorializes 
the spirit and underlying considerations of the Proposed Settlement 
agreement; and do you further agree that it should be used as an 
authoritative interpretive guide in settling disputes about the 
practical application of the Proposed Settlement?
    A. The Competitive Impact Statement was prepared pursuant to the 
Department's obligations under the Tunney Act. It has the same legal 
force that the Tunney Act gives any Competitive Impact Statement.
    Ultimately, the language of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
controls. Contrary to the assumption in the question that the 
proposed judgment is full of loopholes, it is not. Both sides spent 
five weeks full time working out technically complex concepts and 
reducing them to language that both sides agreed to and understood. 
Both sides worked long hours on crafting the precise wording of the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment, and while the language is technical 
and somewhat complex, reflecting the subject matter of the judgment, 
it is vastly clearer, more precise, and understandable to those 
bound by the decree and to those who must enforce it than any of the 
alternatives ever suggested, including Judge Jackson's now-vacated 
June 2000 order and the relief proposed by the non- settling states.
    Q2. Could you please identify the specific aspects of the 
Competitive Impact Statement that you believe do not accurately 
represent Microsoft's understanding of the Proposed Settlement? And, 
to the extent you believe that the Competitive Impact Statement is 
inaccurate, would Microsoft be willing to provide a detailed 
description of these perceived inaccuracies along with specific 
language describing Microsoft's understanding of the issue, 
language, or provision, the accuracy of which Microsoft disputes?
    A. Microsoft did not participate in the preparation of the 
Competitive Impact Statement. The language of the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment was carefully negotiated and means what it says. The 
Department's Competitive Impact Statement has the same legal force 
and effect in this case as in any other. Beyond that I cannot go in 
light of the facts that the Tunney Act proceeding is currently under 
way before Judge Kollar-Kotelly and that the non-settling states are 
attempting to raise various issues concerning the Competitive Impact 
Statement as part of the ongoing ``remedies'' litigation 
also before Judge Kollar-Kotelly. Once that litigation is completed, 
I may be in a better position to discuss these issues with the 
Committee.
    Q3. In your written testimony (p. 9) you briefly address the 
Proposed Settlement's prohibition of retaliation by Microsoft 
against computer makers. You summarize the provision in the 
settlement stating that ``Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate 
against computer makers who ship software that competes with 
anything in [Microsoft's] Windows operating system.'' Id. 
Concerns, however have been raised regarding perceived limitations 
on this anti-retaliation provision. Could you explain either why the 
perceived caveats were included in the anti-retaliation provision as 
well as why you believe that these perceived caveats do not actually 
allow Microsoft to engage in substantial retaliation against 
computer makers?
    A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment makes clear that 
Microsoft may not retaliate against OEMs, ISVs, and IHVs because 
they develop, etc., software that competes with the Windows PC 
operating systems or Microsoft Middleware. The provision prohibits 
``retaliation'' as that word is commonly understood and 
defined. The provisos in the relevant sections of the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment do not provide opportunities for Microsoft 
to circumvent this prohibition; rather, those provisos simply 
provide some certainty that in the future no one will try to extend 
the prohibition to certain conduct that is legitimate and not 
generally understood to be ``retaliation.'' So for 
example, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is written to ensure 
that it will not be possible to twist the common meaning of 
``retaliation'' to cover situations in which Microsoft 
seeks legitimately to protect its intellectual property against 
infringement. The decree also makes clear that Microsoft may enforce 
a contract, including through rights of termination against an OEM 
that has breached the contract by, for example, refusing to pay 
royalties due and owing to Microsoft. Microsoft's ability to enforce 
valid OEM agreements that do not violate the decree is qualified, 
however, because section III.A requires Microsoft to give an OEM the 
opportunity to cure any breach at least two times during the term of 
the contract (which currently is one year).
    Q4. Is it your position that the anti-retaliation provision does 
in fact prohibit Microsoft from all forms of retaliation against 
computer software makers that choose to ship software that competes 
with Microsoft products; and, if not, how do you answer the 
criticisms that the provision is insufficient to effectively prevent 
retaliation ?
    A. See the answer to question 3.
    Q5. Several media sources and commentators have reported that 
major computer makers--or ``OEMs''--such as 
Hewlett Packard, Compaq, Dell, and Gateway, are heavily dependent on 
Microsoft, which--some have argued--may explain the lack 
of vocal opposition by these companies to the Proposed Settlement. 
With this in mind, how can the Proposed Settlement's substantial 
reliance on these companies to incorporate software that competes 
with Microsoft products on the computers the), distribute be trusted 
to result in actual competition in the middleware market?
    A. The Department and the plaintiff states are probably in the 
best position to explain the theory of their case and their request 
for relief. Nevertheless, both the premise of much of the case and 
of much of the relief proposed by anyone in this case has been that 
competition will be enhanced if Microsoft is prevented from 
retaliating against or favoring OEMs on the basis of their decisions 
whether or not to distribute, support, etc., software that competes 
with Microsoft's PC operating systems or middleware. The United 
States and settling states insisted on sections III.A and III.B to 
eliminate Microsoft's ability to harm or favor OEMs based on their 
decisions to support, vel non, software that competes with Microsoft 
platform software. In addition, section III.C ensures OEMs that they 
will have freedom to install and feature non-Microsoft middleware, 
and section III.H even obligates Microsoft to design its future 
operating systems in ways that make it easier for OEMs (and end 
users) to display non-Microsoft middleware.
    The Revised Proposed Final Judgment thus eliminates what the 
United States and Plaintiff states perceived as disincentives for 
OEMs to install and feature non-Microsoft PC operating systems and 
middleware, and the proposed judgment creates a number of new 
incentives and opportunities for OEMs to install and feature such 
software. It is noteworthy that even before these new protections 
for OEMs were put in place, OEMs were shipping non-Microsoft 
software, like the AOL client or RealNetworks media software, that 
fits within the Revised Proposed Final Judgment's broad definition

[[Page 30282]]

of middleware. Indeed, AOL currently has a major advertising 
campaign with broadcast commercials advising PC owners that 
``AOL is already installed on most computers, probably even 
yours.'' It is also worth noting that the Court of Appeals did 
not conclude that Microsoft ``retaliated'' against any OEM 
for shipping any competing software.
    Q6. Could you please explain, in detail, what incentives you 
believe will actually lead OEMs to install software that competes 
against Microsoft software? Are you aware of particular competing 
software that OEMs might currently wish to install in favor of 
similar Microsoft products?
    A. As explained in response to question 5, OEMs are already 
shipping a lot of non-Microsoft middleware. If there is any doubt, I 
invite anyone to visit their local PC retailer and discover all the 
preloaded non-Microsoft software that OEMs are already offering on 
the PCs they ship. The AOL and RealNetworks examples in the response 
to question 5 are not alone. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
provides OEMs with flexibility to hide access to certain features in 
Windows if those OEMs wish to promote non-Microsoft software in lieu 
of the Windows features. As explained in my answer to other 
questions from the Committee, the Court of Appeals upheld the 
district court's finding that OEMs were less likely to install non-
Microsoft Web browsing software if they were not allowed to hide the 
icons for Internet Explorer. OEMs will now be free to do so for Web 
browsing and other categories of software. Whether OEMs really wish 
to hide access to features of Windows, of course, remains to be 
seen. Nevertheless, the important point is that the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment removes any obstacle posited by the plaintiffs in the 
case and provides significant new opportunities for installing non-
Microsoft middleware products on PCs running Windows.
    Q7. With respect to concerns raised regarding the lack of a 
strong enforcement mechanism in the Proposed Settlement, could you 
please expand upon the reason that you believe the Proposed 
Settlement ensures effective enforcement? Could you also explain 
your view of how enforcement will occur? Finally, could you explain 
why--assuming that this is your position--the proposed 
alternative enforcement mechanisms are either unnecessary, 
undesirable, or both ?
    A. As stated in my testimony, the enforcement provisions in the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment are unprecedented in a cM1 antitrust 
decree. While enforcement authority resides with the Department and 
the settling states (as parties to the settlement), the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment puts an independent Technical Committee on 
the Microsoft campus with broad authority and unlimited access to 
company facilities, personnel and intellectual 
property--including the most sensitive of Microsoft's 
proprietary software code. The Technical Committee is intended to 
help monitor and resolve any technical issues that arise in an 
expeditious and expert manner without putting Microsoft's legitimate 
intellectual property rights at risk of confiscation. As for 
interpreting the legal meaning of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment and expertly and effectively utilizing enforcement 
mechanisms to ensure that the judgment is complied with, the 
Department of Justice and the states quite understandably felt that 
there is no one in the world with their experience in interpreting 
and enforcing antitrust decrees. As a consequence they negotiated 
for and obtained, a complete set of the enforcement powers that the 
Department historically has obtained in antitrust judgments. 
Moreover, they demanded and obtained judgment provisions that ensure 
that the Technical Committee will not in any way undermine or 
abrogate those powers.
    All of the alternative enforcement mechanisms that have been 
proposed by third parties would really add nothing to the power of 
the Department and the states to enforce a judgment. If anything 
they would add layers of bureaucracy and potentially undermine the 
Department's control over enforcement of the decree. For example, 
some have suggested the need for a special master. No one argues 
that a master is a substitute for the Technical Committee; rather, 
the master would be a complement to deal with legal issues. The 
Department, however, does not need help dealing with legal issues 
surrounding consent decrees; it is the nation's leading expert on 
such issues. Moreover, because the master could not assume Article 
III powers, Microsoft would be able to appeal any decision to the 
district court and beyond, thereby delaying final resolution of 
disputes. On the other hand, a master could interfere with the 
legitimate and routine exercise of the Department's constitutionally 
based prosecutorial discretion.

DeWine Questions

    Q1. Mr. Rule, in your testimony you have gone to great length to 
explain how certain portions of the government's case were dropped 
or thrown out during the course of litigation. Does Microsoft 
acknowledge that it violated the antitrust laws?
    A. Microsoft certainly acknowledges that the Court of Appeals 
held that certain of Microsoft's conduct amounted to monopoly 
maintenance in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. The reason 
that Microsoft went so far in the negotiations with the Department 
of Justice and the states--as my testimony explained, the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment covers conduct and products that 
were never part of the case--was to close this contentious 
chapter in the company's history and move forward in a new, more 
constructive manner with the Department and the states. 
Unfortunately, several of the states that had less involvement in 
the litigation and negotiations than the states that settled decided 
to hold out for relief that not only has nothing to do with the 
Court of Appeals decision but is also confiscatory, anticompetitive, 
and in many cases unintelligible. As a result, Microsoft has had no 
choice but to continue litigation and must preserve its full ability 
to defend itself, including its right if necessary to seek review of 
the Court of Appeals' decision.
    Q2. Mr. Rule, many within the high tech industry have argued 
that the antitrust laws are overly cumbersome when it comes to 
promoting competition within the fast- changing industry. Is this 
Microsoft's position?
    A. No, Microsoft recognizes that the antitrust laws have an 
important role in protecting the benefits of competition in all 
industries, including high technology.
    Q3. Mr. Rule, What do you believe are the appropriate objectives 
of remedies in monopolization cases such as this? Do you believe the 
case law supports a position that monopoly acquisition cases should 
be treated differently than monopoly maintenance cases? Finally, do 
you believe this settlement fully achieves the appropriate remedy 
objectives? If not, in what ways is it deficient? And in what ways, 
if any, do you believe it reaches beyond the case?
    A. At pages 4 and 5 of my testimony to the Committee, I quoted 
the language of the Court of Appeals'' decision and the 
comments of Judge Kollar-Kotelly concerning the scope of remedy. 
Moreover, in a recent article in the ABA's Antitrust magazine, 
Assistant Attorney General Charles James provides an analysis of the 
legal basis for relief in a case such as this. Also, it is worth 
recalling that the Court of Appeals quoted the antitrust treatise of 
Professors Areeda and Hovenkamp, to the effect that ``'' 
[re]ere existence of an exclusionary act does not itself justify 
full feasible relief against the monopolist to create maximum 
competition.... Absent such causation [i.e., between the conduct and 
creation or maintenance of monopoly power], the antitrust 
defendant's unlawful behavior should be remedied by ``an 
injunction against continuation of that conduct.'' United 
States v. Microsoft Co/p., 253 F.3d 34, 106 (DC Cir. 2001), quoting 
3 AREEDA & HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW 650a, at 67. Moreover, 
the court noted that ``the District Court expressly did not 
adopt the position that Microsoft would have lost its position in 
the OS market but for its anticompetitive behavior.'' 253 F.3d 
at 107. The court concluded its review by stating that any remedy 
``should be tailored to fit the wrong creating the occasion for 
the remedy.'' Id. As this analysis suggests the case law does 
support the proposition that the remedial objectives are different 
in cases of monopoly acquisition as opposed to monopoly maintenance, 
particularly where, as here, the causal connection between the 
defendant's position in the market and the illegal conduct is 
tenuous at best.
    Evaluated against the backdrop of the relevant caselaw, the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment goes substantially beyond what the 
law required for a remedy in this case. To cite just a few examples, 
the definition of middleware is much broader and more inclusive than 
the conception of middleware at issue in the Court of Appeals 
decision. Several of the central, most onerous provisions of the 
Revised Proposed Final Judgment involve conduct that was not even 
addressed by the Court of Appeals. For example, nothing in the Court 
of Appeals decision suggests that the way in which Microsoft has 
made APIs and related documentation available to third parties 
violated the Sherman Act; yet, Microsoft has agreed to a whole 
regime of compulsory API

[[Page 30283]]

disclosures for middleware. Similarly, nothing in the decision even 
calls into question charging different OEMs different royalties for 
Windows licenses, but the Revised Proposed Final Judgment requires 
Microsoft to charge the top 20 OEMs uniform royalties. Nothing in 
the decision suggests that Microsoft ever has retaliated against any 
OEM, ISV or other company because it supported or shipped competing 
software; yet, Microsoft agreed to several provisions prohibiting 
such retaliation. And Microsoft is obligated to license its client-
server communications protocols despite the fact that the so-called 
client-server interop issue was not raised in the District Court 
much less before the Court of Appeals. In contrast, I have yet to 
hear a credible argument as to how, in light of the Court of Appeals 
opinion, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment is deficient.
    Q4. Some believe that unless Microsoft is prevented from 
commingling operating system code with middleware code, competitors 
will not be able to truly compete in the middleware market. Because 
the code is commingled, the Microsoft products cannot be removed 
even if consumers don't want them. It seems to me that this deters 
competition in at least two respects. First, as the Appellate Court 
found, commingling deters computer manufacturers from pre-installing 
rival software. And second, it seems that software developers are 
more likely to write their programs to operate on Microsoft's 
middleware if they know that the Microsoft middleware will arrays be 
on the computer whereas competing products will not. Even if 
consumers are unaware that code is commingled, shouldn't we be 
concerned about the market impact of commingling code? What is the 
upside of allowing it to be commingled, and on the other hand, what 
concerns are raised by removing the code?
    A. First, it is important to emphasize that the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment does address the issue of commingling of code as that 
issue was relevant in the Department's case and the Court of Appeals 
opinion. The only objection to commingling advanced in the case was 
that it made it impossible for OEMs to remove end user access to 
Internet Explorer. Section III.H of the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment obviates any such concern by requiring Microsoft to design 
its Windows PC operating systems in such a way as to enable OEMs and 
end users to remove end user access to Microsoft middleware and 
replace it with access to non-Microsoft middleware. Given the theory 
of the case, the record developed in the lower court, and the 
decision of the Court of Appeals, this provision of the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment provides a complete remedy.
    Second, as Assistant Attorney General James indicated in 
response to one of the questions of the Committee during the 
hearing, the plaintiffs never sought to prevent Microsoft from 
integrating functionality into its operating systems or from 
exposing that functionality through APIs to ISVs. Indeed, as I 
understand, even the Department's proposed divestiture remedy which 
was adopted by Judge Jackson, kept a single, intact operating system 
company so as to prevent ``balkanization'' of the Windows 
platform. Moreover, the Court of Appeals decision clearly recognized 
the benefits of integration in the area of platform software and the 
benefits of the ubiquity of the API set of Windows. The Court's 
discussion of ``commingling'' did not reflect hostility to 
ubiquitous dissemination of APIs. Any remedy that allowed OEMs to 
remove code and APIs from Windows would be unworkable: third party 
developers and their customers would suffer because their 
applications would not run properly, assuming they would run at all, 
if OEMs removed code exposing APIs. Indeed, it would make no sense 
to obligate Microsoft to disclose new APIs (as the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment does) while at the same time allowing OEMs to create 
versions of Windows from which APIs are removed, rendering the 
disclosed APIs useless to developers.
    Q5. Many believe that this settlement proposal merely requires 
Microsoft to stop engaging in illegal conduct, but does little in 
the way of denying Microsoft the benefits of its bad acts. First, 
how would you answer these critics? Is this just a built-in reality 
of civil antitrust remedies, that they don't really aim to punish? 
And second, do you believe the remedy here is strong enough to 
dissuade other potential monopolists from engaging in the type of 
conduct in which Microsoft engaged?
    A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment goes well beyond halting 
the specific acts found to violate the antitrust laws. It is true 
that the purpose of a civil antitrust decree is to remedy the 
violation rather than punish the offender, but the decree in this 
case provides very strong relief beyond the markets and practices at 
issue in the underlying case. This remedy will change the way 
Microsoft does business and is more than what the law requires. As 
both the trial court and the Court of Appeals recognized, the 
plaintiffs failed to prove that Microsoft benefited from any of its 
acts that were held to violate the Sherman Act, so no basis exists 
for requiring that Microsoft be denied any such benefits. Moreover, 
while it is well- established in the law that punishment and 
deterrence are not a proper objective of a consent decree in a civil 
antitrust case, there is no question that the cost to Microsoft of 
this litigation, the follow-on private, treble damage actions, and 
the far-ranging nature of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment send a 
powerful signal to Microsoft and other firms all across the economy.

Kohl Questions

    Q1. Mr. Rule, in the past your client Microsoft has been adamant 
in denying it was a monopolist--despite its 95% share of 
computer operating systems--and that it in any way violated the 
antitrust laws. Now, the unanimous DC Circuit Court of Appeals has 
ruled that Microsoft indeed is a monopolist and indeed acted 
illegally to maintain its monopoly. Will this ruling--and 
Microsoft's experience in this litigation--in any way chasten 
Microsoft into behaving more responsibly? Is Microsoft now willing 
to recognize that it is a monopolist and, as a result, has 
obligations to deal with competing businesses in a way that would 
not exist if did not have monopoly power in its business?
    A. Microsoft certainly acknowledges that the Court of Appeals 
held that Microsoft possesses monopoly power and that certain of 
Microsoft's conduct amounted to monopoly maintenance in violation of 
section 2 of the Sherman Act. Moreover, the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment represents Microsoft's extensive concessions to relief that 
go far beyond what the company believes the Department and states 
had a right to obtain under the applicable precedents--as my 
testimony explained, the Revised Proposed Final Judgment covers 
conduct and products that were never part of the case. The reason 
that Microsoft went so far in the negotiations with the Department 
of Justice and the states was to close this contentious chapter in 
the company's history and move forward in a new, more constructive 
manner with the Department and the states. Unfortunately, several of 
the states that had less involvement in the litigation and 
negotiations than the states that settled decided to hold out for 
relief that not only has nothing to do with the Court of Appeals 
decision but is also confiscatory, anticompetitive, and in many 
cases unintelligible. As a result, Microsoft has had no choice but 
to continue litigation and must preserve its full ability to defend 
itself, including its fight if necessary to seek review of the Court 
of Appeals'' decision.
    Q2. Please identify for us five specific ways in which the 
proposed settlement, once it is in force, will compel Microsoft to 
change its business practices in a manner which will benefit 
consumers.
    A. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment imposes a number of new 
obligations on Microsoft. As you have requested, the following is a 
list of five such changes chosen at random. First, section III.B 
requires Microsoft to provide the top 20 OEMs with uniform license 
agreements pursuant to terms and conditions. Pursuant to the 
stipulation Microsoft signed when the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment was filed on November 6th, the new terms became effective 
on December 16th. Second, III.C requires Microsoft to allow OEMs to 
remove end user access to functionality in Windows XP such as 
Windows Media Player and Windows Messenger and to replace it with 
access to third-party software or services such as RealNetworks 
media player and to AOL's Instant Messenger. Third, section III.E 
requires Microsoft to license all of the communications protocols 
that Windows PC operating systems use to interoperate natively with 
Windows server operating systems. While Microsoft has licensed some 
of those protocols to third parties on an ad hoc basis, the company 
has never made them available systematically to third parties. 
Fourth, section III.G prohibits Microsoft from agreeing with a 
variety of third parties to contracts that require the third parties 
to distribute, promote, use, or support Microsoft platform software 
``in a fixed percentage'' except in narrow circumstances. 
Prior to agreeing to the Revised Proposed Final Judgment, Microsoft 
sometimes used fixed percentage requirements to ensure that it 
received the effort from third-parties for

[[Page 30284]]

which Microsoft bargained; Microsoft can no longer freely use this 
normal business mechanism. Fifth, section IV.B requires Microsoft to 
accept three neutral technical experts (the ``Technical 
Committee') onto its campus and provide them with full access to its 
employees and its most confidential information. This is 
unprecedented not just for Microsoft but for any other U.S. firm of 
which I am aware. Presumably, the Department of Justice and settling 
states believed these changes (as well as the others in the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment) would benefit consumers or they would not 
have demanded the inclusion of these provisions in the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment.
    Q3. The proposed consent decree contains prohibitions on 
Microsoft retaliating against computer makers who choose to install 
in their machine software products that compete with software made 
by Microsoft. But many wonder if Microsoft will be able to offer 
financial incentives to accomplish essentially the same thing. For 
example, could Microsoft offer to pay incentive amounts to computer 
makers who feature or promote Microsoft software on their machines ?
    A. Section III.C of the Revised Proposed Final Judgment 
prohibits Microsoft from restricting OEMs by agreement from, among 
other things, installing any non- Microsoft middleware on the PCs 
that the OEM ships. That section also prohibits Microsoft from 
``restrict[in] by agreement'' any OEM from 
``[e]exercising any of the options provided in III.H of the 
Final Judgment.'' Thus, the judgment does in fact prevent 
Microsoft from offering financial incentives to OEMs not to install 
and ship competing non-Microsoft middleware.
    Q4. One important issue the settlement was intended to address 
was Microsoft's ability to penalize computer makers that load non-
Microsoft software onto their machines. Under the settlement, can 
Microsoft still bar a computer maker from putting WordPerfect word 
processing software or Quicken financial software pre- installed on 
their machine? If so, why isn't Microsoft's ability to place such 
restrictions on computer makers a problem for competition?
    A. Microsoft has never kept a computer maker from loading either 
WordPerfect or Quicken (or any other application) on machines it 
sells. Indeed, a quick review of any computer retailer indicates the 
variety of applications installed by OEMs on the PCs they sell. The 
reason that the Revised Proposed Final Judgment does not place such 
restrictions as you mention on Microsoft is that no part of the case 
against Microsoft had anything to do with conduct by Microsoft that 
was intended to, or did, have any exclusionary impact on non-
middleware applications such as word-processing and personal-finance 
software. And there is no plausible argument that extending relief 
to such non-middleware applications has a connection to the theory 
of the Department's case against Microsoft.

Durbin Questions

    Q1. This is an unprecedented settlement for an unprecedented 
case. The entire world has been, and will continue to, watch every 
aspect of this case. They will also be watching to see if Microsoft 
complies with every word of this decree. Assuming this settlement is 
approved, can you outline the steps that will be taken to ensure 
compliance with the settlement? Are these steps unique in any way?
    A. Microsoft has made a company-wide commitment to comply with 
the settlement entered in this case. The Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment contains strong enforcement provisions that include 
internal compliance efforts within the company. As stated in my 
testimony, Microsoft already had one of the largest and most 
talented in-house legal teams in the country, and the recent hiring 
of new compliance specialists will further enhance that team. From 
the very highest levels of the company, Microsoft is eager to settle 
this matter and move forward, and has every intention of meeting its 
settlement obligations to avoid any further disruption of its 
business. Business executives, developers and lawyers are hard at 
work at Microsoft implementing every aspect of the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment. Microsoft has provided extensive training on the 
settlement to its lawyers and key business and development employees 
throughout the world. Senior personnel are meeting on a weekly basis 
to manage everything Microsoft must do to comply with the 
settlement, including identifying and documenting new APIs and new 
Communications Protocols and designing and developing new software 
for the upcoming Service Pack release of Windows XP to facilitate 
removing access to key Windows features. Microsoft has already 
implemented the OEM provisions of the settlement, establishing new 
uniform Windows license terms for its OEM customers, making those 
terms available to the Department and the states for their review, 
and so forth.
    Q2. What assurances can the American people have that Microsoft 
will really be constrained from future anti-competitive practices ?
    A. As stated in my testimony, the Revised Proposed Final 
Judgment as agreed between Microsoft, the Department and the 
settling states provides very strong relief and unprecedented 
enforcement mechanisms. The Revised Proposed Final Judgment goes 
well beyond the practices at issue in the underlying case and will 
change in significant ways the manner in which Microsoft does 
business.
    Microsoft has made full compliance with the Revised Proposed 
Final Judgment a top priority. As mentioned in response to an 
earlier question, Microsoft has never been found to have violated 
its previous antitrust decree.

Responses to Questions from Senator Hatch:

    Question #1: Both commentators and several witnesses (in 
their written testimony) defend the Proposed Settlement by arguing 
that its terms are as good as--or even better than-- what 
would have been obtained through further litigation. Several have 
also pointed out that it would take at least two more years to get a 
remedy in place by means of litigation. Could you please explain 
whether and why you believe that further settlement negotiations or 
litigation would be in the public interest?
    Answer: A settlement of established antitrust violations is 
desirable only insofar as it remedies past misconduct or promotes 
future competition. The Proposed Settlement unfortunately does 
neither. Even as to the desktop PC market it contains numerous 
loopholes, and critically omits any objective enforcement mechanism 
to incent compliance. Given Microsoft's proven track record of 
circumventing the 1995 consent decree, riffs risks gutting even the 
limited remedies set forth in the Proposed Settlement. The Proposed 
Settlement also flatly fails to deal with the increasing important 
arena of new devices (cell phones, PDAs, set-top boxes, and home 
entertainment centers) into which Microsoft is extending its desktop 
operating system and applications monopolies through many of the 
same improper technical and contractual means it used to obtain 
dominance in the desktop PC arena. Absent stronger and wider 
protections for consumers, litigation would be the only viable 
alternative to protect consumer interests.
    Question #2: In light of the number of claims from the 
original complaint that the DC Circuit found to lack merit, is it 
reasonable to believe that any judgment resulting from further 
litigation would be significantly better than the Proposed 
Settlement?
    Answer: While the DC Circuit did not affirm every finding of 
liabilit7 against Microsoft, and the Department of Justice has 
elected not to pursue certain causes of action that were remanded, 
the case against Microsoft is still compelling. The DC Circuit 
affirmed the district court's central finding that Microsoft has a 
monopoly and has acted improperly to protect that monopoly by 
undermining competitive threats like Netscape's Navigator web 
browser and Sun's Java programming language. As I understand it, the 
Supreme Court and the DC Court of Appeals have both held that a 
reviewing court has the obligation to ensure a remedy for proven 
antitrust abuses should end the illegal monopoly, undo the 
anticompetitive effects, and prevent future practices likely to lead 
to future monopolization. For the reasons noted, the Proposed 
Settlement fails well short of these objectives.
    Question #3: At the hearing, I emphasized the need for 
prompt antitrust enforcement in quickly evolving markets. Could you 
please explain whether and why you believe that the benefits of 
having an imperfect settlement now are outweighed by those of having 
a possibly better settlement at some point in the future?
    Answer: It is precisely because the Proposed Settlement is a 
backwards-looking document that fails to deal with current and 
emerging competitive abuses that we need a more efficient and 
forward-looking remedy. Failing to address new markets at tiffs 
point would permit Microsoft to re-enact its repeated monopolistic 
conduct, extending its improper monopoly

Responses to Questions from Senator DeWine

    Question #1: The Proposed Final Judgment aims to make the 
middleware market more

[[Page 30285]]

competitive. Do you believe it is effective in doing so?
    Answer: For the reasons noted in my written testimony, I am 
confident that the Proposed Final Judgment will not encourage 
competition in the market for middleware. The Proposed Final 
Judgment fails to meaningfully limit Microsoft's ability to use its 
tremendous market power to retaliate against companies whose conduct 
threatens that market power. As a result, original equipment 
manufacturers are highly unlikely to adopt middleware products that 
compete with Microsoft's products or anticipated product extensions.
    Moreover, much of the Proposed Final Judgment focuses on 
original equipment manufacturers, while the locus of control has 
largely moved to the operating system and to the networks to which 
it links (such as MSN). Controlling the operating system and the 
linked networks gives a company the ability to prompt users to make 
upgrades and accept default programs and features. The Proposed 
Final Judgment gives Microsoft all the latitude it needs to prompt 
consumers at eve:! turn in order to ensure that the easiest path to 
middleware software is always the Microsoft path.
    Similarly, Microsoft is building on its operating system 
monopoly through initiatives such as Passport and Hailstorm, 
establishing a dominant share of consumer identity information, 
which acts to further lock-in consumers to the use of Microsoft 
middleware across a variety of devices and networks.
    Question #2: Do you believe Microsoft will be able to 
leverage its monopoly in the PC operating system market to capture 
market share in other operating systems markets such as hand-held 
devices, navigation devices, and servers? Does the proposed 
settlement address this issue at all, and do you believe that 
Appellate Court's ruling would permit a settlement that address 
these types of concerns?
    Answer: Microsoft's ability to improperly extend its monopoly to 
new areas is a significant cause for concern. Microsoft was 
convicted of illegally protecting its desktop PC monopoly against 
threats from Netscape's Navigator browser and Sun's Java programming 
language, innovative new products that each had the potential to 
reduce Microsoft's monopoly dominance of the computing environment. 
Given the increasing importance of the interoperability of different 
consumer-oriented computing environments (desktop PCs, client-server 
network operating systems, small devices, and home entertainment 
systems), control over the broader computing environment is critical 
to preserve Microsoft's dominance into the future. Many of these 
devices operate in client-server configurations, in which 
Microsoft's PC desktop operating system dominance gives it an 
advantage in the server market, and thus an advantage in writing 
software for any other devices that need to access those servers.
    On the other hand the emergence of non-Microsoft-dominated soft, 
rare could pose a serious potential threat to Microsoft's ability to 
dominate this wider computing environment--just as Navigator 
and Java did a few rears ago. The combination of network 
externalities resulting from the creation and protection of 
Micr0soft's existing operating system and application 
monopolies--together with the likely repetition of Microsoft's 
improper technical and contractual misconduct in these new 
markets--poses a critical problem for competitors and 
consumers. The Court of Appeals ruling expressly authorizes, and in 
fact calls for, a remedy that not only redresses past misconduct but 
also deters practices likely to extend the anticompetitive effects 
of the improper monopoly into the future. The Proposed Final 
Judgment fails to do so and sets the stage for a continued stifling 
of innovation.

Responses to Questions from Senator Kohl

    Question #1: Do you believe that this settlement is adequate 
to restore competition in the computer software industry? Why or why 
not?
    Answer: No. The Proposed Settlement fails to include remedies 
that will restore any meaningful competition to file markets in 
which Microsoft improperly established its monopolies, fails to 
include any objective or efficient sanctions for non-compliance with 
its terms, and fails to address the emerging consumer markets (such 
as those for small devices such as PDAs, cell phones, television 
set-top boxes, and home entertainment centers) in which Microsoft is 
improperly expanding its monopolies.
    Question #2 (a): Are there any restraints on Microsoft's 
conduct which you think should be in the settlement but are not? Is 
so, what are they?
    Answer: Yes. The remedies proposed by file non-setting states 
would be far more effective than the Proposed Settlement in 
redressing prior abuses and restoring competition to the market. As 
set forth in my original written testimony, my perspective at 
Liberate gives me special insights into the need for several of 
these remedies:
    Review of Microsoft Investments. Investing the considerable 
proceeds of its desktop monopoly in new markets, Microsoft has 
extracted, or attempted to extract, exclusive or near-exclusive 
commercial distribution arrangements to block out competitors. In 
the interactive television industry alone, Microsoft has invested 
billions of dollars with leading cable and satellite networks. The 
strings attached to these investments often require net-works to buy 
Microsoft's middleware, making it difficult or impossible for them 
to buy competitive products.
    Prevention of Anticompetitive Conduct in Non-Desktop PC Markets. 
The Proposed Final Judgment focuses only on Windows products for 
desktop PCs and includes broad and ambiguous exceptions to its 
limits on retaliation. These loopholes would apparently let 
Microsoft get away with the -kind of misconduct it perpetrated 
against Liberate Technologies when it was known as Network Computer. 
The result would be to block or delay the development of new 
competitive devices and technologies. The remedy proposed by the 
non-settling states would, on the other hand, prevent Microsoft from 
using this type of retaliation to unfairly extend its desktop 
monopoly to a wider array of software and devices, while more 
adequately opening Microsoft's technical standards to prevent it 
from excluding rival software companies from meaningful competition.
    Prevention of Efforts to Block Non-Proprietary Standards. 
Microsoft has also abused its monopoly position by blocking 
industry-wide standards essential to the evolution of a new 
generation of network-based devices. In our industry, Microsoft has 
undermined the Java programming language as a standard for digital 
television, lobbying heavily to prevent U.S. and European standards 
bodies from standardizing on Java. As you know, Java lets developers 
``write once, run anywhere'', permitting content to run 
across a wide variety of platforms rather than just on Microsoft's 
proprietary code.
    Moreover, by removing the Java Virtual Machine from its PC 
operating systems while the JI is common elsewhere, Microsoft 
discourages developers from creating new ``write-once, run-
anywhere'' content, undermines support for uniform standards, 
and drives developers to write to proprietary Microsoft platforms. 
Microsoft's foot-dragging and affirmative interference has slowed 
the deployment of digital television in the United States. Cable 
companies and television manufacturers both say that such deployment 
has been slowed by lack of a definitive standard, a standard that 
Microsoft's tactics have delayed and undermined. Microsoft's 
approach stands in direct opposition to the clearly expressed will 
of Congress and the interests of all Americans interested in richer 
and more varied television programming.
    Question #2(b): Beyond restraints on Microsoft's conduct, 
are there other deficiencies in the proposed consent decree which 
you believe should be fixed before it is approved? If so, what are 
they?
    Answer: The critical gap in the Proposed Settlement in this 
regard is the lack of an objective or effective enforcement 
mechanism. Per the recommendation of the non-settling states, I 
would recommend that the district court consider using a technically 
knowledgeable outside advisor to review claims of Microsoft non-
compliance with the terms of any consent decree. Moreover, and 
critically, the sanctions for violation of the terms of the decree 
must go beyond the mere extension of those terms for a relatively 
brief additional period.
    Question #3: Critics of riffs proposed settlement argue that 
one significant loophole is that many of the provisions requiring 
Microsoft to permit computer users and manufacturers to install 
competing software and remove Microsoft soft-,rare do not apply with 
respect to software that has distributed less than one million 
copies. Are you concerned about this limitation? Won't this 
provision make it difficult for small or start-up software 
manufacturers that make software that competes with Microsoft's 
products to gain access to the computer desktop?
    Answer: As Bill Gates himself has said, the greatest competitive 
threat to Microsoft's dominant position comes not from existing 
competition, but from the kid tinkering in his garage, designing 
seminal new software that might revolutionize the industry.

[[Page 30286]]

Unfortunately, the one-mill/on-copy threshold makes it a 
terrifically uphill battle for those ``kinds of revolutionary 
ideas to get traction and take hold. Without access to critical 
information about Microsoft's products, it will be extremely 
difficult for any'' new competitor to make its product operate 
successfully in a Microsoft-dominated computing environment. As a 
result, venture capitalists will be loath to support any small 
company that seeks to compete with Microsoft--no matter how 
attractive its innovation.
    By way of example, Liberate Technologies was itself until 
recently a fledgling start-up. It took us five years and a difficult 
decision to exit a ]me of business (network computing) dominated by 
Microsoft before we were able to reach the benchmark of distributing 
one million copies of our software. In today's environment, with 
Microsoft's additional market power, we simply would not have been 
able to reach that point.
    In sum, the million-copy threshold, coupled with the failure to 
effectively redress Microsoft's existing market dominance, will 
certainly stifle promising next-generation innovations.
Competitive Technology
January 14, 2002
The Honorable Patrick Leahy
Chairman
United States Senate
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 224
Washington, DC 20510
VIA FACSIMILE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
    Dear Chairman Leahy:
    I want to thank you again for the'' opportunity to appear 
at last month'' s hearing to testify on how the Revised 
Proposed Final Judgment (RPFJ) in United States v Microsoft, will 
affect consumers and the information technology (IT) industry. I 
]lave received the written questions from members of the Committee 
and I'm pleased to provide responses that will not only complete the 
record but also provide the perspective of the small high technology 
companies that represent the majority of the industry.

Responses to Questions from Senator Hatch

    1. There is no doubt that bringing this protracted litigation to 
a close is in the best interests of the IT industry and consumers. 
Settling the case removes a cloud of uncertainty and allows 
companies large and small to focus on innovating to meet consumer 
demand. Further litigation is not likely to produce any remedial 
actions that-- a) are not already covered by the RPFJ and 
responsive to the Court of Appeal's ruling, or b) would be in the 
interests of the industry, save a few Microsoft rivals. As 
demonstrated by the very nature of the proposed 
``remedies'' that will be part of ongoing litigation, it 
is clear that the RPFJ presents an appropriate and balanced 
resolution of this case. I agree with Assistant Attorney General 
Charles James when he noted at a November 2, 2001 press conference, 
``It]he settlement is consistent with the relief we believe we 
might have obtained in litigation. This settlement, however, has the 
advantages of immediacy and certainty.'' I
    2. It is very unlikely that a judgment borne of continued 
litigation will be marginally, let alone !'significantly'' 
better than the RPFJ''. As you point out in your question, the 
Court of Appeals has dramatically reduced the finding of liability 
against Microsoft. The conduct restrictions, coupled with the 
additional enforcement measures such as the creation of a Technical 
Committee, more than adequately address the anticompetitive behavior 
identified by the Court of Helping Washington Get IT. 1413 K Street. 
N W ``12th Floor Washington. DC Tel: 202-33 ]-2130 Fax: 
202-331-2 ) 39 (r) email: [email protected] 
www. ACTonline.org
    Appeals. I include the following table to show precisely where 
the RPFJ addresses each finding:
Findings of Antlcompctitivc Conduct by the Court of Appeals 
Settlement Section
Limiting promotion of browsers or restricting OEMs from modifying 
the initial III.C, boot sequence III.G. 1, III. H
Prohibiting deletion of the Internet Explorer icon 11II-t.1-3
Commingling Internet Explorer & Windows code without providing a 
simple III. H. 1-3 mechanism for OEMs and users to remove 
access to Internet Explorer
Restrictions on the promotion and distribution of competing web 
browsers by III.A.1, Internet Access Providers III.C.l-2
First-wave requirements for software vendors to use Microsoft's Java 
Virtual III.F.2
Machine First-wave requirements for software vendors to use Internet 
Explorer III.G.1
Leveraging MS Office to induce Apple to feature Internet Explorer 
III.G.2
Misleading Java Developers III.D
Pressuring Intel to end their Java Virtual Machine development 
III.F. 1
    3. On balance, this settlement is good for our industry. We 
agree with the Senator that the RPFJ is not perfect. In fact, as 
pointed out in my written testimony, ACT believes that the 
provisions mandating disclosure of server protocols and the creation 
of the Technical Committee are beyond the finding of liability and 
may set an inappropriate precedent for future antirust cases in the 
information technology industry. That said, it is important to point 
out that this case is nearly four years old and has shrouded the 
entire IT industry in a haze of uncertainty. At present, the 
technology industry--which has been the engine for much of the 
recent economic growth--cannot realize its full potential in 
the uncertain environment this case engenders. Those who seek to 
prolong this case for their own benefit are, at a minimum, guilty of 
making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Responses to Questions from Senator DeWine

    1. One important lesson to be learned from this case is that 
antitrust principles apply to the IT industry. The RPFJ is proof 
that antirust principles, when applied properly, can work to restore 
competition within the IT industry. For example, the settlement will 
stimulate competition by giving greater flexibility to computer 
manufacturers and users to choose among different middleware and 
operating systems.
    With respect to what to say to Netscape, I would hardly consider 
them ``defeated.'' After building a 85% market share, the 
company was acquired by America Online for $10 billion dollars and 
continues to be a viable browser with millions of loyal users. More 
importantly, Netscape should be congratulated for winning one its 
biggest arguments--the browser as a platform threat. It is 
clear that the browser has emerged as a platform competing against 
operating systems for application hosting. The popularity of 
browsers (including Navigator) and browser-based applications 
evidences this fact. Therefore, we should tip our hat to the 
Netscape
Robert G. Ristroph
11612 Hidden Quail
Austin, TX 78758
December 23, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing with regard to the Justice Department's proposed 
settlement with Microsoft. I believe that this settlement should be 
scrapped and completely rewritten. Most of the 
``restrictions'' placed on Microsoft are already illegal; 
what few restrictions are left are impossible to enforce and seem 
designed to produce more legal disputes rather than resolve them; 
and the proposed en- forcement mechanism is a ludicrous 
embarrassment. In addition to scrapping this proposed settlement, 
any payment or further employment of the authors should be re-
evaluated in light of this idiocy.
    I have read the original complaint of United States and the 
several States at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f 1700/1763.htm, 
the proposed settlement at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/
9495.htm, the Competitive Im- pact Statement at http://
www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f9400/9495.htm, as well as numerous other 
sources including the findings of fact and other documents. My own 
injury by Microsoft's illegal actions comes from Microsoft's 
agreements with OEM's which forced my employer to pay for Windows 
when buying a new computer from Dell, which we had no plans to use 
Windows, intending it for Linux. This was supposedly addressed in a 
prior case to the present one, and yet to this day the same hardware 
without a Microsoft license has the same cost.
    I wish to examine the elements of the proposed agreement item by 
item, and then propose an outline of an alternative settlement.
    A. That Microsoft will not retaliate against OEMs for 
distributing non-Microsoft software. This is already prohibited by 
law, given Microsoft's monopoly. The proposed settlement can not 
consist of Microsoft agreeing to follow the law in the future; like 
other companies in the United States, it has to follow the law 
regardless of this settlement.
    B. That Microsoft make public it's licensing agreements and 
offer the same terms to everyone. This is the only part of the 
proposed settlement makes sense, however, OEMs have shown in the 
past they were willing to collaborate in Microsoft's illegal

[[Page 30287]]

activities. Should Microsoft offer an OEM a secrete payback or 
special deal, the cooperation of the OEM will make this section 
difficult to enforce.
    C. That Microsoft cannot restrict certain OEM software through 
agreements. This is already illegal, like A.
    D. Some meaningless nonsense not worthy of comment or the paper 
it is printed Oil.
    E. That communications protocols in Microsoft software be 
publicly available. In light of Microsoft's previous behavior in 
exploiting secrete calls in it's soft- ware, all of it's source code 
should be available for public examination. The suggestion that only 
``communications protocols'' be public is problematic be- 
cause it leaves open to dispute what consists of a communications 
protocol. This is foolish given Microsoft's previous self-serving 
interpretations of court orders.
    F. That Microsoft will not retaliate against software vendors 
for competing against them. This is already against the law given 
that Microsoft is a monopoly.
    G. That fixed percentage distribution agreements be banned. This 
is already against the law. The exceptions listed in this paragraph 
are also against the law, creating the suggestion that the United 
States will enter into an agreement with Microsoft to allow it to 
break the law in some cases.
    H. That OEMs and users are allowed to configure the Microsoft 
software they buy. This is vague and confusing because it is 
difficult to precisely describe what consists of configuring 
software, and thus impossible to reliably enforce. In a competitive 
market it would be the natural case, and the proposed settlement 
should focus on restoring competition.
    I. That Microsoft offer licenses to ``intellectual 
property'' necessary to allow others to exercise 
``alternatives provided under this final judgment.'' The 
reference to alternatives provided to others contradicts the final 
section of the proposed settlement, which explicitly denies that the 
final settlement gives any rights to third parties. Even aside from 
that, this section probably denies behavior al- ready illegal, is 
riddled with exceptions, vague, and seems designed to produce legal 
action rather than remedy.
    J. A section devoted wholly to exceptions for Microsoft, as if 
there where not enough already.

The Enforcement Authority

    A. Access to source code is probably one of the best remedies. 
The exceptions and limitation of this access to a committee are 
silly.
    B. The Technical Committee. It has too few members, it should be 
composed of Officers of a United States Federal Court in order to 
make it's requests immediately enforceable through Contempt 
hearings, and the gag on public statements renders the whole 
committee useless. The further restriction that the testimony of 
this muzzled and hobbled committee not be admissible in court is a 
bit like shooting the deer after it's tied down with it's throat 
cut.
    C. The Microsoft Compliance Officer. This section is nonsense. 
Other compa- nies manage to obey the law without the use of a 
special office. If Microsoft needs one they can implement it without 
a judgment.
    D. Voluntary Dispute Resolution. This section seems dedicated to 
stipulating that various parties send each other letters before 
seeking court hearings, a common practice. 4(d) guts all enforcement 
power from the proposed judgment, and suggests that the Attorneys 
for the Justice Department don't believe in their own system of 
courts.

Third Party Rights

    This section is in contradiction with other references to the 
submission of complaints to the Technical Committee and the 
requirement that Microsoft offer ``intellectual property'' 
licenses to the third parties so that they can pursue the 
alternatives guaranteed them in this proposed final judgment.
    In summary, this proposed final judgment is a poor sham for a 
capitulation by the Plaintiffs. It's not even a good surrender, 
because it's vagueness and self-contradictions guarantee more legal 
action; if we must capitulate, at least we should save on legal 
costs. It also completely fails to disguise the capitulation in any 
way. This is why whoever wrote it should be fired, even if the 
Justice Department unwisely chooses to fail to enforce the law as 
applies to Microsoft. A real final judgment, which might have the 
chance of remedying the situation, would have to be in some way 
``self enforcing.'' By ``self enforcing'' I mean 
that the remedy by it's nature should preclude further legal 
wrangling and evasion efforts by Microsoft. Stipulations on 
Microsoft's future behavior inherently have to be enforced, and thus 
are not well suited to this case. Furthermore, when the proposed 
judgment stipulates that behavior already illegal be banned and then 
suggests exceptions, the Plaintiffs are acquiescing in further law 
breaking by Microsoft.
    An example of a ``self enforcing'' remedy would be 
denying Microsoft copyright protection. No Technical Committee is 
required; all that is needed is to reject out of hand cases of 
copyright enforcement that Microsoft brings. Thus, revoking 
copyright privileges for some portion of the works that Microsoft 
used to violate the law might be an appropriate remedy. Or perhaps 
Microsoft could post substantial bonds against it's future behavior.
    Many of the major flaws in this proposed final settlement result 
from the needless use of vague and disputable terms, when simple and 
undisputable ones would do.
    Replace all references to ``Microsoft Middleware'' 
``Windows Operating System Product'' and such with the 
simple phrases ``products of Microsoft'' and ``prod- 
ucts of third parties.'' Avoid even the use the term 
``software products,'' as Microsoft would produce hardware 
required to run their products and then vio- late the agreement. Be 
sure the phrase ``products'' is defined to mean anything 
Microsoft does, including services.
    Replace all references to ``ISVs, IHVs, ICDs, OEMs'' 
and such with the phrase ``any third party.'' Quibbling 
over which member of the alphabet soup a partic- ular entity fell 
under is thus eliminated. The final judgment should require no 
differentiation between the various consumers and companies 
interacting with Microsoft. This also remedies the fault that the 
current proposed judgment allows Microsoft to exempt any third party 
from the benefits of what legal behavior is required by claiming 
they do not have a viable business plan. I hope you find these 
suggestions helpful in writing a real judgment.
    Sincerely,
    Robert G. Ristroph
RENATA B. HESSE
ANTITRUST DIVISION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
6oI D STREET NW
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-001
I0 DECEMBER, 2001
    Dear Renata B. Hesse,
    I am a concerned citizen, unwilling Microsoft customer forced to 
use their unpleasant products because of their unassailable 
monopoly, and a long time member of the computer industry.
    I am writing to you to protest the terms of the Proposed Final 
Judgement, in specific the failure of this Judgement to address the 
pivotal role that the open software movement has played in the 
genesis of the Internet age, and its legitimate ongoing 
contributions which are ignored by the Judgement s terms and will be 
harmed by the Judgement s execution.
    To enumerate but three of thousands of valuable not for profit 
software development efforts which remain critical to the ongoing 
viability of the net and which will be harmed by the Proposed Final 
Judgement because they are beneficiaries of neither Section 
III(J)(2) under (c) as meet[ing] rea- sonable, objective standards 
established by Microsoft for certifying the authenticity and 
viability of its business .... nor under Section Ill(D) as the 
footnotes hold this section in force only to commercial concerns:
    Apache is the Internet server that made the net possible. It is 
the most viable competitor to IIS, Microsoft s server architecture. 
Without Apache the net would grind to a halt. There is no commercial 
contender to IIS, the entire competitive landscape is between IIS 
and Apache and a few other open source servers. Since IIS is 
stunningly, almost fraudulently insecure, the Proposed Final 
Judgement weakens the Nation should it not aggressively protect the 
better engineered open source efforts from Microsoft s predatory 
tactics.
    BSD, especially in its most popular flavor freeBSD, and its 
younger but bigger brother Linux present a real and viable challenge 
to Microsoft in the server market, are gaining in the workstation 
market, and would, if they could be made compatible with Microsoft s 
industry crushing Office, be a viable contender on the desktop. 
These efforts are undertaken in that most American of spirits: for 
the good of all. They provide real alternatives to Microsoft; 
significant and meaningful improvements in performance and security 
to users who appreciate these things when compared to Microsoft's 
invariably flawed products, and competition which is perhaps 
Microsoft s only remaining motive for fixing its failures. While 
major security holes are exposed in IIS every month or so, despite 
Microsoft s efforts to sweep

[[Page 30288]]

them under the rug, no security hole has been discovered in NetBSD 
in more than four years. These superior products are run without 
marketing and lobbying budgets and will be crushed by Microsoft 
which will endeavor to make them as incompatible as possible with 
their desk-top monopoly (if their efforts to make them outright 
illegal fail).
    This message will reach you through one or many servers running 
Sendmail. A near perfect application which relies on free and open 
standards established for the routing of electronic mail.
    Since Microsoft will be under no obligation to share standards 
with the not-for-profit organization that maintains Sendmail, it is 
quite certain that Microsoft will do whatever they can to force all 
Sendmail administrators to switch to an expensive, fault ridden 
Microsoft product, leveraging their monopoly on the desktop to do so 
unless the DOJ alters the Proposed Final Judgement to protect open 
source at least as effectively as it protects whatever pathetic 
vestiges of the commercial market still stand to chal- lenge 
Microsoft s otherwise unassailable monopoly.
    The Proposed Final Settlement fails utterly to address the 
critical role of the open source movement and is therefore utterly 
unacceptable to me as a harmed party.
    Sincerely,
    David Gessel
    BLACK Rose TECHNOLOGY
    5233 FOOTHILL BLVD.
    OAKLAND, CA 946oi
    5Io 290 3849 (CELL)
    5Io 536 toO5 (FAX)
    WWW.BLACKROSETECH.COM
Nurth Darnlina Beneral Assemhlu Senate Dhaber SENATOR SCOTT E. 
THOMAS 3rD DISTRICT
Raleigh: 622 LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING Raleigh, NC 
27601-2808 (919) 733-6275 (919) 838-0208 Fax E-
MAIL: [email protected]
DIStriCT: PO BOX 12530 NEW BERN, NC 2856 l (252) 633-6888 
(252) 637-2450 Fax
COMMITTEES:
JUDICIARY II (Vice CHAIR)
APPROPRIATIONS
 JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE
AGRICULTURE/ENVIRONMENT/NATURAL RESOURCES
EDUCATION/HIGHER EDUCATION
INSURANCE & CONSUMER PROTECTION
REDISTRICTING
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
TRANSPORTATION
January 9, 2002
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via facsimile: (202) 307-1454
Re: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement that the 
Department of Justice and several states, including North Carolina, 
have reached with Microsoft.
    I will be pleased to see this matter resolved because it will be 
a boost for the technology sector, a larger force in the North 
Carolina economy. I believe that the certainty of the settlement 
will promote new investment in technology and will enhance 
competition in all aspects of the technology industry which will 
benefit consumers.
    With this litigation settled, the technology industry can 
continue its recovery and growth. The settlement represents a 
reasonable compromise that has earned bipartisan support. I urge the 
Department of Justice and the court to approve this settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Senator Scott Thomas
    ST/cbj



MTC-00033794

State Headquarters
211 East 7th Street, Suite 620
Austin, TX 78701
 Phone: (812) 477-9821
 Fax: (S12) 480-0709
 www.texasgop.org
Susan Weddington, Chairman
January 7, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments on the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    It goes without saying that the settlement agreement between the 
U.S. Government and Microsoft comes at a critical time when our 
economy and nation most need reconciliation.
    The proposed settlement requires significant changes in the way 
Microsoft develops, licenses and markets its software. This 
settlement is fair. It prevents Microsoft from abusing the strength 
that it derives from its operating system, but also allows the 
company to continue innovating in all areas of software development. 
Microsoft in Texas is a major employer and contributor to our 
economy. In addition, Microsoft and its employees in Texas donate 
millions of dollars annually to a large variety of charitable 
causes.
    I congratulate, you on developing a strong but fair settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Susan Weddington Chairman



MTC-00033795

From: Tom Wright [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:08 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: usdoj comments
    For the first time in my life I am compelled to contact an 
office of my Federal government.
    I am appalled at the ``settlement'' your department 
has reached with Microsoft. It disgusts me to see that a corporation 
that abuses its monopoly power and lies in federal court about its 
actions can receive virtually no penalty for that behavior. Your 
office is supposed to protect people like me from the likes of 
Microsoft. I voted for G.W. Bush but would not have done so were I 
aware that this obvious sellout would be the outcome. I'm sure that 
the decision to ``settle'' in this manner was cloaked in 
the guise of stimulating our weakening economy. What in effect you 
have done is to enhance the ability of that bully corporation 
(Microsoft) to further stifle ingenuity and creativity at the 
expense of the consumer and the taxpayer. This 
``settlement'' will serve to only embolden Microsoft in 
the ruthless use of its power to crush their rivals.
    Today I am ashamed of my government.
    Thomas P. Wright
    Sr. Software Engineer
    Forte Industries
    6037 Commerce Ct.
    Mason, OH 45040
    (513) 398-2800x206 (Voice)
    (513) 398-2837 (FAX)
    This email has been scanned by MailMax.
    http://www.maximizeit.net



MTC-00033796

Yanta, Judy
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 5:38 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: microsoft Dear Sir or Madam,
    I would like to say that I think Microsoft might be let off too 
easy. They have an illegal monopoly on operating systems in the US 
and abroad. They should have to open up the OS market to 
competition.
    Thank you for your time.
    Mr. Michael Brennan
    II0 Beresini Lane
    Hollister, CA 95023
    [email protected]
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Find a job, post your resume.
    http://careers.yahoo.com



MTC-00033797

Yanta, Judy
From: Janet Unger [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 9:36 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Your settlement is pathetic. I can't believe all that money and 
time was wasted, only to give MS barely a slap on the wrist. Once 
again, the consumer loses to a company who can cause the government 
to completely cave. For shame.
    Janet Unger
    21 Forestdale Road
    Kinnelon, NJ 07405
    Janet Unger



MTC-00033798

Yanta, Judy
From: David Piper [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:40 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Dear Attorney General:
    Microsoft settlement of 1 billion to the 12,500 poorest schools 
is forcing schools to use just Microsoft programs and giving 
children no alternative to Microsoft. This is what a monopoly does 
and is. This is at the expense of the children. As an example: the 
Mahoning County Library system in Ohio uses only Microsoft after 
libraries got money form Microsoft: even though Boardman schools use 
WordPerfect the library refused

[[Page 30289]]

to install WordPerfect on the library computers in the school 
district.
    This makes companies change to Microsoft software or spend more 
money on training. Add to this that as a programmer you have to 
follow Microsoft's programing or you face the program of not being 
ungradable to the next OS. Of course Microsoft can make changes then 
incorporate the changes into the next OS.
    And finely Microsoft's OS from version 3.0 to ME were at best 
not stable at worse designed to make people upgrade to the next OS. 
In any case you had to paid to fix the problems of the OS your using 
just to get a different set of problems in the next OS. Windows 95 
should have been NT 3.5 made for a home user and run Windows 3.1 
software. Just like XP is a home version of Windows 2000. IBM had 
OS/2 version 2 running Windows 3.1 software if you had 3.1 installed 
on the computer. This allowed Microsoft to pick the pocket of the 
consumer for new OSs and stop any innovation from other programers. 
The solution is that any owner of Windows 95 should get XP FREE. 
Also any money Microsoft gives for ether settlement or gift should 
not be tied to using Microsoft products.
    David Piper
    7550 Sugartree Dr.
    Youngstown, Ohio 445125430
    330 758 5182
    fax/voice 330 629 6080
    [email protected]



MTC-00033799

Technology Research
Fax to Attorney Generals
Justice vs. No Justice 21660
1/16/02
    In certain states and cities, you can BUY outcomes in the legal 
system. If there is any elected official who stands for what is 
right, it is Attorney General. Not District Attorneys. Not the 
Attorney General of the U.S. State Attorney Generals. So far you 
have not ``stepped up to the plate.''
    The dot.com bubble/bust primarily was a telecommunications 
phenomenon. The huge regional bell operating companies were faced 
with new upstart competitors. They both bought communications 
equipment like there was no tomorrow. That's why companies like 
Nortel, Cisco, Lucent, and Corning (fiber optics & 
communications gear) went through the roof. Then the bust occurred. 
Nortel had 95,000 employees. Now it has 47,000.
    Neither of above phenomenon has anything to do with Microsof 
with the exception that Microsoft had no breakthroughs like Visicaic 
nor Windows (Xerox/Apple origin). If anything, Microsoft has slowed 
PC growth. Why? Because it has made small incremental changes to its 
Windows operating system. No major breakthroughs. That is why U.S. 
corporations, for the most part have no real interest in XP. What 
they have now works well. Why pay for both hardware and software 
upgrades when what you have now works very well. If you go wimp on 
Microsoft, the economy will NOT get a boost. Microsoft is a 
monopoly. In fact, it is very mean-spirited and anticompetitive as 
well. Step up to the plate. Do your job. Didn't you have a teacher 
who taught you the difference betwen RIGHT and WRONG. Do what is 
right.
    If you ``cave in,'' as some of you seem prone to do, I 
reserve right to write the most important people in your home tonw 
and tell them you are a little wimp. That you had responsibility on 
your shoulders and you shirked it. That you are all-time weanie. The 
country is strong today because people did what is right and worked 
hard. Please do what is right. Life is short. This may be one of the 
most important decision in your life. Don't fuck it up. Be a man/
woman. Don't be a friggin copout.
--John Staple, Staple Technology Research, 713 288-8800 
[email protected] Yogi Berra: ``It ain't over til 
it's over.'' This bullshit is FAR FROM OVER. John Staples.



MTC-00033800

Yanta, Judy
From: Eric [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:35 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft settlement
    Mr. John Ashcroft,
    It is with much embarrassment that our DOJ basically caved in 
with regards to making a settlement with Microsoft. I have read the 
settlement agreement and I can't believe how many loopholes there 
are for Microsoft. It appears that because of the recent terrorist 
attacks, the DOJ is letting Microsoft go. So, Microsoft crushed 
Netscape, continues to use their Monopolistic practices, is planning 
on continuing to use their monopolistic powers to gain control of 
the Internet, and the DOJ is just slapping their wrists with NO 
penalty at all. I am outraged as a US citizen as well as a consumer. 
This settlement in no way protects me from Microsoft. Maybe 
Microsoft did the right thing and started contributing money to the 
political parties, perhaps this is what this was all about to begin 
with. Who knows. What I do know, is that it appears that there is no 
one with any technical expertise that was involved with this 
agreement. Shame on you and the DOJ. You have just proved that if 
you have enough money and are powerful enough that you too can break 
any and all laws and not be brought to justice.
    Eric R. Fairhurst
    11181 Harrington Lane
    Fishers, IN 46038



MTC-00033801

Stoney, Ericka
From: Robin Harris [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 10:08 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft,
    I was angered by your capitulation to Microsoft in the recent 
settlement talks. The Sherman Antitrust Act is over I00 years old 
and is a matter of settled public policy. Yet you treat egregious 
and repeated violations of it and the resulting harm to our economy 
and our global leadership of the information technology industry as 
worthy of only a slap on the wrist. The IT company I am an officer 
of does not compete with Microsoft and I use many of their products. 
But predatory behavior by monopolists is bad for everyone, a common 
sense judgement reached over a century ago, but a judgement you 
evidently don't the have the wit to endorse.
    You've given every corporate violator of our nation's laws new 
reason to resist negotiation and cooperation. America will be paying 
for your lack of backbone for decades to come. I hope the campaign 
contributions your party expects from Microsoft are seen for what 
they are: a payoff for craven dereliction of duty. I hope the 
State's Attorneys General see fit to the do the duty you've shirked.
    Sincerely,
    Robin Harris
    10210 NE Points Dr
    Suite 300
    Kirkland, WA 98033



MTC-00033802

Yanta, Judy
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:29 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments ``Microsoft case''
    Dear Attorney General & Ms. Kollar-Kotelly:
    Concerning this Microsoft case: As a consumer and user of 
Microsoft products, I am totally disgraced by our system of Justice 
not standing up to this Monopoly.
    They have put out falty products, that have costed hundreds of 
Trillions of dollars to consumers and businesses. Not to mention 
lost time.
    How is it that Microsoft be treated any differently that another 
business? Are they above the laws of the United States?
    I have as a consumer asked Microsoft to correct the falty 
products and replace or compensate all. They have ignored me. Why? 
Because they feel they are above the laws, and have to answer to no 
one.
    I feel that they need to be ordered to recall all their falty 
products and make restitution to all. They knew that they were 
selling incomplete or poor products, but they still sold them? They 
made their Windows 95,98,ME operating systems so a consumer has to 
upgrade pay them more money just to use it. I work for a small 
computer business and our tech spends some days 2-3 hours a 
day ,at Microsoft support site trying to fix their problems? At whos 
expense? The business owners. If they were anyother business they 
would have been forced to recall. Sounds like they have committed 
consumer Fraud to me, at the expense of millions of consumers?
    Please see that Justice prevails.
    Thank you.
    Kevin f. Bugnacki
    18 Walnut Street
    Baldwinsville,NY 13027-1116



MTC-00033803

Yanta, Judy
From: Gerry Evans [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:51 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments
    HON. JOHN ASHCROFT:
    I realize the chances of AG Ashcroft actually reading this are 
probably slim and

[[Page 30290]]

none. However, as the old movie adage goes--I'm mad as hell, 
and I won't take it anymore.
    I am sick and tired of self-serving, avaricious lawyers 
extending the outlandish persecution of Microsoft beyond human 
understanding. This is in specific reference to an article in the 
11-20-01 WSJ siting California attorneys opposed to a 
``reasonable'' settlement from Microsoft because they 
feel--California consumers will be unfairly treated. I 
say--BS!
    The only people hurt by the senseless and continued drubbing of 
Microsoft are Microsoft owners/employees, Microsoft shareholders, 
AND the consuming public as a whole. For God's sake, if it ain't 
broke, why fix it? I am very satisfied with the absolutely and 
positively FREE web browser and other services given to me by MS. 
The idea of continuing the litigation ad infinitum is ridiculous and 
sympathetic to the same type of ``consumer screw'' that 
resulted from the dismemberment of AT&T and produced higher 
prices for local service, lower levels of consumer satisfaction for 
the same local service, and pockets full of cash for specialty 
carriers who were allowed to ``cherry pick'' from the tree 
nurtured by AT&T into the best phone system in the world.
    I say, ``To hell with California and its cadre of blood-
sucking lawyers.'' And, while I am not privy to such 
information, I would wager MS is somewhere behind the scene in 
provisioning the U.S. with its current software capabilities in 
carrying on our war on terrorism. Ayn Rand is surely turning over in 
her grave. MS offers an arm and a leg, and the Californicator 
lawyers want to snatch its head also. Enough is enough; shut down 
the damn litigators nationwide in their quest to undermine a 
national resource. The consumers deserve it.
    Gerry B. Evans
    3350 S. Justin
    Flagstaff, AZ 86001



MTC-00033804

Stoney, Ericka
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pamela M. [[email protected]]
Friday, December 07, 2001 11:56 AM
ASKDOJ
USDOJ Comments
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft,
    I understand through Reuters that the Microsoft monopoly case is 
coming to a conclusion. A $1 billion dollar fine is being 
imposed--one billion dollars to schools.
    On the face of it, this sounds wonderful. I am a teacher. 
However, this may destroy a rival, and frankly BETTER, but smaller 
company--APPLE. Apple has a far more stable operating system 
since the inception of Macintosh. Apple has been the choice for 
years for graphic designers. The one market share Apple has because 
they worked very hard to get it is the schools. They got it because 
Apple sustained the graphics necessary to keep the attention of 
children. Historically, Microsoft stole the Windows operating system 
concept from Apple to begin with. Throughout the years Microsoft has 
yet to perfect Windows, the Microsoft version of the Apple operating 
system, to the point where it doesn't ``crash''.
    Apple has always had a more stable design for its operating 
system. For this reason, schools like it far better--there is 
less time spent on fixing a computer and more time teaching (teacher 
has to fix, either during class or after school; ergo important 
lesson time is lost).
    While Apple is filing a brief for consideration by the judge 
overseeing the case, you have direct access to the prosecutor who 
will recommend a course of action. Schools need the continuing use 
of the Apple Macintosh computers. The ruling to infuse schools with 
$1 billion of Microsoft hardware/software will destroy Apple; Apple 
will lose its primary market. Schools will lose the operating system 
that takes less teacher intervention to fix. The computers, then, 
will not be used, nullifying the whole point. Teachers simply cannot 
and will not stop every lesson 14 times to fix the 
``crashes'' of an unreliable operating system. Please, 
discuss the impact of this ruling on the social good of American 
school children. Frankly, I think it would be better to either 
allocate the billion to getting the elderly of our society online or 
building schools for the children of Afghanistan.
    Sincerely,
    Pamela A. Mahony
    1231 N. Columbus Ave. #1A
    Glendale, CA 91202
    (818) 500-1588



MTC-00033805

Yanta, Judy
From: Christine Keller [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 7:56 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: DOJ vs Microsoft
Christine Keller
9181 Market Ave
Hartville, OH 44632-8715
January 3, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Attorney General Ashcroft:
    A settlement in which Microsoft has to pay the bill is not in 
the ``public interest''. Paying the legal staffs of the 
federal and state DOJs, Microsoft, possibly of the AOL conglomerate, 
and all the class action seeking lawyers is not in the ``public 
interest''. Any such result will mean an increase in Microsoft 
prices and the entire industry will increase their prices to keep 
up. We do not need another IBM or AT&T settlement that only 
``busts'' a good company, redistributes business and 
forces consumers to pay higher prices for the resulting fiasco.
    Very, very and angrily Sincerely,
    Christine F. Keller



MTC-00033806

Yanta, Judy
From: E McCann [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 11:30 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments
    This is regarding the proposed ``settlement'' given in 
the Microsoft anti-trust case.
    Where, in this settlement, is Microsoft being punished? Where is 
there actual oversight? Where are the guarantees that they won't be 
able to continue their practice of running roughshod over the 
marketplace? It's as if GM managed to strongarm fuel stations, tire 
manufacturers, etc. into making their products ``more 
compatible'' with GM at the expense of Ford, Mercedes, and the 
like, with their only ``weak'' market with real 
competition being in interstate semi trucks. In this hypothetical 
situation, they're brought to court, found guilty, and as 
``punishment'' not only are allowed to define what a 
``vehicle'' is for purposes of describing what's affected 
by the settlement, but also need to provide the 50 poorest trucking 
companies with GM trucks!
    This is punishment? This rectifies the situation? This is a 
remedy? What I would like to see, instead, would be:
    1. Don't allow Microsoft to ``have to'' spend money to 
supply schools with computers (which will end up being based on 
Microsoft software, and eventually make more money for them through 
their planned ``.net'' service and software 
``subscriptions.'') While attempting to help schools is 
admirable--it has nothing to do in this form with rectifying 
the situation. Why give them--not just a toehold, but a whole 
beachhead--in a market they do not dominate already? If they 
MUST spend money on schools, have them submit the sum to the court 
to distribute and let the schools spend them on the systems that 
best suit their needs--with no Microsoft involvement other than 
sending the money to the court.
    2. Create a court-appointed body that will oversee Microsoft's 
coding, marketing, and business practices. Microsoft should have a 
*minority* presence, not \1/3\ with an option to appoint another \1/
3\ of the committee. They would have to justify changes in standards 
(such as the Microsoft Word .doc format, which changes with *every* 
release) to this committee, who would have the power to deny the 
ability to make these changes.
    3. Have them release the FULL source for their products. 
Microsoft does NOT like open source--because it removes control 
from them. However, it has been proven with Linux and other open 
source projects to be an effective way to create an efficient 
product, and patch problems with that product in a much more timely 
manner than Microsoft is now able to do. It also allows competing 
software manufacturers (such as WordPerfect/Corel, IBM, etc.) to be 
sure they are seeing the complete OS, and eliminates any suspicion 
of ``favored'' companies or Microsoft divisions having an 
advantage with ``secret,'' undocumented, or 
``hidden'' APIs and calls.
    4. Have an independant body create the definitions for 
``operating system,'' and other terms, that don't have 
loopholes in them that Microsoft can use to get around any legal 
restraints.
    5. Investigate Microsoft's licenses--more important now 
than ever, with their ``subscriptions'' and forced 
upgrades.
    6. Have an independant body oversee Microsoft's upgrades and 
procing.
    7. Have Microsoft break Internet Explorer (and future products,) 
Outlook

[[Page 30291]]

    Express, MSN Messenger, etc. from the operating system. Not only 
does this restore some slight competitive nature to the market, but 
will have a side effect of helping MS's operating systems run 
better. Remove the proprietary ``help'' system that forces 
you to install Internet Explorer as well. Regular HTML works 
perfectly well, and is an open standard.
    8. Place the W3C in charge of standards, such as HTML, Java, and 
the like. They do this already, but give them the ability to reject 
``extended'' standards (and give them some teeth while 
they're doing it) such as Microsoft's ActiveX and other HTML 
``additions'' (or ventures like J++, C%, etc. that work 
only on Windows.)
    These are just some suggestions... Microsoft *has* stifled 
innovation, not created it. And they're still working on ways (with 
strategies such as .net, and software ``subscriptions'') 
to lock people and businesses into Microsoft-only or Microsoft-
dependant models.
    Eric McCann
    907 Dean #104
    Coquille, OR 97423



MTC-00033807

Yanta, Judy
From: Chris Hamady [[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 4:57 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Microsoft has once again hurt consumers and the U.S. 
Government
ATTACHMENT.TXT
USDOJ,
    I feel compelled to write to you to voice a complaint against a 
company that continues to treat consumers and the state and national 
governments with arrogance and disdain. Recently, it became public 
knowledge of a security hole in WindowsXP that can allow a hacker 
complete and total control over a Windows XP based computer once it 
is connected to the internet. This in and of itself is statement 
enough against Microsoft, yet to my shock, it is being reported that 
Microsoft was informed of the security hole a full 5 weeks before 
ever notifying the consumers, business community, and the government 
of the United States, all who were at risk while Microsoft reaped 
profits acquired through the withholding of this information from 
the public. To make matters worse, they advertised that Windows XP 
is a ``new standard in security'' for computer operating 
systems. I am not a lawyer, but to me this seems to be some sort of 
product fraud leveled against consumers. Please look into this on 
behalf of me and all consumers who want a fair and balanced 
technology marketplace, and reconsider the current settlement with a 
company, that I feel, will never stop treating consumers, 
competitors, and the government with total arrogance, illegality, 
and disregard.
    Thank you.
    Respectfully,
    Christopher M. Hamady
    8941 Sylvania Ave.
    Sylvania, OH
    43560
    Christopher M. Hamady
    [email protected]
    (419) 843-8890
    MY WWW HOMEPAGE IS AVAILABLE AT:
    http://mustec.bgsu.edu/ï¿½7Ee;chrismh



MTC-00033808

Yanta, Judy
From: Colin Valentine [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 9:10 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments
    This is an example of what Microsoft is doing! settled!
    The DOJ should not have
To:  (Microsoft Corporation)
Cc: 
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: Outlook Express
    Two days ago I scanned a printed page using a Visioneer scanner, 
and sent the file as an attachment to my own e-mail address. The 
letter displayed with the following message: ``OE removed 
access to the following unsafe attachments in your mailbox: december 
MAX''
    I have been satisfactorily using the Visioneer scanner and 
sending the resulting files as attachments using Outlook Express 
since July of 2001. The message described above displays in a narrow 
bar across the top portion of the e-mail page. The operating system 
is Windows 98, in a Compaq Presario. There were no software changes 
in the same time frame. I have been using a very widely used 
firewall for about the last year. Can you remove this undesired and 
unauthorized interferance by your Outlook Express application?
    Thank you,
    Colin Valentine
    [email protected]
    (865) 681-7694
    1715 Linda Lane
    Maryville, TN 37803



MTC-00033809

Yanta, Judy
From: Julian Huff [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 11:12 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments(PIs forward to the Attorney General)
    Sir,
    I find it necessary to comment on the proposed settlement 
between the U.S. Go This trial has proceeded under keen 
professionals like myself. it is ridiculous that a company which has 
been found guilty of of non-competitive actions, including giving 
its products away in order to force other companies out of business, 
should be allowed a settlement in which it gives away well over a 
billion dollars worth of its product and services, especially in an 
area in which it does not already enjoy a majority of market share.
    How is this going to lead to competition in the marketplace? The 
educational market is one of the FEW areas that Microsoft does not 
currently dominate. How will this affect companies like Apple 
Computer, who are currently competing in that market? Do you think 
that schools will choose to use quality and competitive pricing as 
market tools to their own (and those other company's) advantage? Or 
will they take the free products, further increasing Microsofts 
monopoly and power?
    The fact that this type of a settlement has been approved by the 
prosecution is a sad statement on the state of Justice in America 
today. This is a laughable solution and we will look back on it one 
day saying, ``Remember when there were lots of alternative 
products WITHOUT the Microsoft label on them?'' Then we'll 
sadly shake our heads and wonder what would have happened if the 
Government had decided not to repress America's entrepreneurs and 
sell out the consumer by not punishing a monopolistic bully like 
Microsoft when it had the chance.
    Thank you,
    Julian P. Huff
    Manager--Desktop Services
    PETsMART, Inc.
    19601 North 27th Avenue
    Phoenix, Arizona 85027
    * 623.587.2407 (office)
    * 623.580.6109 (fax)



MTC-00033810

Stoney, Ericka
From: Libby Abright [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 4:59 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments-Microsoft win over the people
    Where is the protection for me and businesses which serve me in 
the Microsoft case? Who was bribed to get this decision-- or 
are our govt. people that stupid?
    I have stock and don't want to see the company decimated, but I 
have been hurt, as has every one who uses a computer by the 
Microsoft monopoly and their defective software.
    Don't you see the damage your settlement is doing? Look at the 
new software that puts restrictions on people who buy and use the 
software--we can't even use it as we please!
    Libby Albright
    228 Ximeno Ave
    Long Beach CA 90803



MTC-00033811

Stoney, Ericka
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 8:13 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: microsoft
    Just a line or two to let you know how I feel about the 
microsoft case. Microsoft is one of the biggest holdings in many 
people's 401k, Ira.s,etc. Since the start of the anti-trust case the 
value of the stock has dropped. At a time when you want people to be 
less depended on social security and max out on their 401k plans, 
and keep up their IRA.s, you not only go after microsoft but also 
attack the many people who looked to the company for fiancial 
security, through their retirement plans. Ease up, and the stock 
could possibly rise restoring people's confidence not only in MSFT, 
but the stock market in general.
    Thanks.
    John McDevitt,
    469 Foss Ave.,

[[Page 30292]]

    Drexel Hilt, Pa. 19026
    E-mail: [email protected]



MTC-00033812

Stoney, Ericka
From: Tom Wright [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 1:08 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: usdoj comments
    For the first time in my life I am compelled to contact an 
office of my Federal government.
    I am appalled at the ``settlement'' your department 
has reached with Microsoft. It disgusts me to see that a corporation 
that abuses its monopoly power and lies in federal court about its 
actions can receive virtually no penalty for that behavior. Your 
office is supposed to protect people like me from the likes of 
Microsoft. I voted for G.W. Bush but would not have done so were I 
aware that this obvious sellout would be the outcome. I'm sure that 
the decision to ``settle'' in this manner was cloaked in 
the guise of stimulating our weakening economy. What in effect you 
have done is to enhance the ability of that bully corporation 
(Microsoft) to further stifle ingenuity and creativity at the 
expense of the consumer and the taxpayer. This 
``settlement'' will serve to only embolden Microsoft in 
the ruthless use of its power to crush their rivals.
    Today I am ashamed of my government.
    Thomas P. Wright
    Sr. Software Engineer
    Forte Industries
    6037 Commerce Ct.
    Mason, OH 45040
    (513) 398-2800x206 (Voice)
    (513) 398-2837 (FAX)
    This email has been scanned by MailMax.
    http://www.maximizeit.net



MTC-00033812 0001



MTC-00033813

Stoney, Ericka
From: Tom Loveman [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 9:38 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: Are you out of your minds!
    The Microsoft settlement proposal is a farce! Hundreds of 
companies and countless technologies have been oppressed, destroyed 
and/or plundered by Microsoft over the years. This decree does 
nothing more than LEGALIZE what they've been doing for decades! Now 
they have the goverment's permission to supress ideas that compete 
with their own, and to abscond technologies and implement them 
internally rather than give credit to the companies that create 
them.
    Are you so binded by a recession and a war that you're willing 
to leave the hen house guarded by the fox!?
    Microsoft was found GUILTY but the punishment does not fit the 
crime. Innovation? HA! The only section of Microsoft that creates 
ANYTHING innovative or of value is the Macintosh Business Unit 
because Apple users are so far ahead of the crap Microsoft puts out 
for PCs that the MBU has to do innovative things.
    Tom Loveman
    Tom Loveman
    19201 Van Aken Blvd
    Suite 513
    Shaker Heights, OH 44122
    216-561-9222 (H)
    216-682-3104 (W)
    
    



MTC-00033814

Yanta, Judy
From: Jim Eddings [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 2:53 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ Comments- Microsoft Settlement
    I applaud you for settling the Microsoft case, but wish to 
present one caveat.
    More and more they are requiring their users to sign up for 
their Passport service to function with their other, unrelated 
products. This requires users to register with them, whether they 
want to or not. For example, users of some Microsoft game software 
are required to use Passport before the Microsoft technical support 
will even answer their email, even though the two products have 
nothing to do with each other. I know many Microsoft software users 
who are avoiding newer products so they will not have to register 
with Passport. The Passport service has suffered from documented 
security problems.
    I implore you to build into your settlement language that would 
prevent Microsoft from forcing their users into this or any other 
product or service for any reason, and specifically forbids this 
from being a requirement for technical support on any product except 
itself. Microsoft has been moving toward subscription licensing to 
lock in their revenue stream even while their anti-trust case is 
going on, and these Passport requirements are appalling. It appears 
they are trying to prevent us from using anyone else's software with 
this practice!
    Thank you very much for your consideration,
    Jim Eddings
    629 Torrence Dr.,
    Gastonia, NC 28052
    Information Systems Director,
    Acme Petroleum & Fuel Co.,
    Gastonia, NC 28054
    (long-time Microsoft customer who loves the products and who is 
becoming very disgusted with their business practices)



MTC-00033815

Yanta,Judy
From: John Ridge [[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:08 AM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject: USDOJ%20Comments
    Sirs:
    I had thought that you had set up on the website a forum to 
solicit comments regarding the sustice's settlement with Microsoft. 
If you have then you have made it exceedingly difficult to find 
because I cannot. That in itself is probably on comment on your 
desire to hear other opinions.
    I would remind you that the Justice Department is here to insure 
that the laws are enforced to protect the people. With your proposed 
settlement with Microsoft you are not fulfilling this promise. It is 
obvious to everyone that this case went from a prosecution of the 
laws to one of political expediency. This is nothing more than a 
slap on the wrist to the biggest monopoly since Standard Oil and 
everyone knows it. The American people's only hope now with this 
issue is that the states will be immune from politics and do what 
they are paid to do, protect the people.
    Thank you for reading my comments.
    John Ridge
    19 Stover Road
    Rochester, NY 14624
    [email protected]



MTC-00033816

Yanta, Judy
From: james p liebmann [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 8:23 PM
To: ASKDOJ
Subject:USDOJ Comments--Microsoft Settlement
    I am embarassed to call myself Republican in light of this very 
disappointing settlement. The terms of the settlement are so 
ineffectual as to be meaningless. More small companies will get no 
financing for fear that Microsoft might enter that same product 
area. Other companies will be squeezed to death like Netscape was.
    I am sorry to say that Attorney General Ashcroft has squandered 
some of his, and President Bush's, political capital, not to mention 
my tax money. The settlement terms do a great disservice to the 
American Public by allowing this company, which has been found by 
the courts to be a Monoplist, to get off with essentially no 
punishment and no effective change of behavior.
    James P. Liebmann
    18 Bromley Rd.
    Pittsford, NY 14534-2934



MTC-00033817

Renata B. Hesse--Antitrust Division
US. Dept of Justice
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am writing as a consumer and an amateur student of computer 
technology. I work for a medical research company in a position 
outside our Information Systems department. I have been an early 
adopter of home computing technology since the 70's.
    I purchased my first IBM PC in 1981 and I have the receipt. The 
operating system (DOS) cost $40 and the actual computer (without 
even a hard drive or a monitor) cost well over $2,000. This came to 
well under 3% of the cost of the system. Today I can buy a vastly 
more powerful computer with a hard drive and monitor and much more 
memory for under $1000. The reduction in price is because of 
competition in the hardware sector. The cost of the operating system 
for such a new system would be more than double even though it has 
not advanced as much as the hardware. And the hardware is much more 
capital intensive to develop particularly considering the reduced 
margins. This imbalance and the actions of Microsoft to achieve this 
condition are well documented in the Findings of Fact (in the case 
before Judge Jackson). I have read the

[[Page 30293]]

Findings of Fact as part of my interest in computer technology.
    I am writing to express my complete dissatisfaction with the 
proposed settlement. It is not sufficient by a LONG shot. It will 
not restore competition nor will it punish the misuse of monopoly 
power. And finally (and this is my unique observation it seems) it 
will do nothing to restore the vigor to the development of software. 
Innovative software development ``looks'' like a 
Competitive market but I content it has been smothered along with 
many of Microsoft's competitors. The opportunity to make money from 
novel and innovative software has been deeply hurt by the abuse of 
the Microsoft monopoly. There must be an opportunity to make money 
and prosper m order to get investment money. We should have many 
times the number of innovative software companies that we have 
today. Today we have many companies using Microsoft tools and 
writing Microsoft programs and never able to get outside this narrow 
and restrictive canyon. Any effective settlement needs to address 
this situation by restoring opportunity.
    Finally, I am just now reformed by the news wires of the 
proposed settlement by the 9 states not signing on to the DOJ 
settlement. They have a MUCH more realistic proposal. A bare bones 
operating system Just might open a window for other competltors to 
come into the marketplace with innovative competitive products in 
this new lower tier market. This is the type of thinking that needs 
to be applied to the problem. The very best solution is to break the 
company up into several smaller competitive companies and that 
should never have been removed from the table.
    Ben Bowers
    420 Fruit Farm Rd
    Royersford, PA 19468??



MTC-00033818

December 9, 2001
Pablo Oliva
60 Lehigh Aisle
Irvine, CA 92612
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Dept. of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mrs. Hesse:
    I am a web developer in the Los Angeles area in California. I 
recently ran across this article online at http://www.pbs.org/
cringely/pulpit/pulpit20011206.html which stated the following: 
``The biggest competitor to Microsoft Internet Information 
Server is Apache, which comes from the Apache Foundation, a not-for-
profit. Apache practically rules the Net, along with Sendmail, and 
Perl, both of which also come from non-profits. Yet not-for-profit 
organizations have no rights at all under the proposed settlement. 
It is as though they don't even exist.
    Section III(J)(2) contains some very strong language against 
not-for-profits. Specifically, the language says that it need not 
describe nor license API, Documentation, or Communications Protocols 
affecting authentication and authorization to companies that don't 
meet Microsoft's criteria as a business: ``...(c) meets 
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for 
certifying the authenticity and viability of its business .... 
`` So much for SAMBA and other Open Source projects that use 
Microsoft calls. The settlement gives Microsoft the fight to 
effectively kill these products.
    Section III(D) takes this disturbing trend even further. It 
deals with disclosure of information regarding the APIs for 
incorporating non-Microsoft ``middleware.'' In this 
section, Microsoft discloses to Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), 
Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs), Internet Access Providers 
(lAPs), Internet Content Providers (ICPs), and Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEMs) the information needed to inter-operate with 
Windows at this level. Yet, when we look in the footnotes at the 
legal definitions for these outfits, we find the definitions specify 
commercial concerns only.
    But wait, there's more! Under this deal, the government is shut 
out, too. NASA, the national laboratories, the military, the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology--even the 
Department of Justice itself-- have no rights. It is a good 
thing Afghanistan is such a low-tech adversary and that B-52s don't 
run Windows.''
    I hope that you understand the severity of this matter. The Open 
Source Software movement is truly a remarkable thing. Many great 
products have resulted from this movement. The Open Source community 
has spawned innovation and quality in software that is unsurpassed 
by Microsoft or any other commercial outfit. This movement and 
community is a great and weighty threat to Microsoft's business 
model. I encourage you to come to a complete understanding of the 
impact that the language of the settlement, which the above article 
sites, will have on the Open Source Software community. There is a 
big chance that Microsoft will have the ability to use this language 
to place pressure on and ultimately strangle the life out of the 
Open Source community... and this is an anti-trust case isn't it?
    Regards,
    Pablo Oliva



MTC-00033819

GRIMES & SMITH
CHARLES T. SMITH
(843) 546-6131
JOHN P. GRIMES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1112 HIGHMARKET STREET
FAX: (843) 527-6692
GEORGETOWN, SOUTH CAROLINA 29440
December 17, 2001
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: United States of America v. Microsoft corporation
Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ)
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I have carefully reviewed the proposed Final Judgement in the 
referenced action and the opinions issued by the District Court and 
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
    The minor restrictions in the proposed Final Judgement are 
rendered meaningless by the extensive exceptions and exclusions. 
Even if the proposed Final Judgement can fairly be interpreted to 
prohibit some conduct, there is no effective enforcement mechanism.
    The proposed Final Judgement does not address Microsoft 
Corporation's serious violations of the antitrust statutes and does 
not serve the public interest.
    Sincerely,
    Charles T. Smith



MTC-00033820

Cole Thompson
2101 Webster Street, 20th floor
Oakland CA 94612
Tel.: 1-510-627-2245
Fax: 1-510-627-3030
Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Suite 1200
Antitrust Division, Department of Justice,
601 D Street NW, Washington, DC 20530
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Antitrust Settlement
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    As a Senior Web Developer for Kaiser Permanente, one of the, 
nations's largest healthcare providers, I am deeply concerned about 
the proposed settlement for the Microsoft antitrust case. For about 
the last five years, I have noticed that truly innovative 
technologies from small companies in the computing industry have 
tended to be withdrawn from the marketplace, apparently due to 
pressure or threats from Microsoft. During this same five years, the 
cost of Microsoft software has steadily increased, even allowing for 
inflation, while the cost of other companies'' software (Sun 
Microsystems, Oracle, Sybase, Borland and many more) has almost 
without exception decreased quite dramatically. The costs of doing 
business as a software company have not increased during this time. 
The only reason Microsoft has bucked the overall trend toward less 
expensive software is that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power, and 
dictates prices to computer vendors. These arbitrarily increased 
costs are ultimately borne by American consumers. Consumers and 
businesses are damaged in just the same way that they would be if 
the cost of gasoline were doubled.
    At a minimum, I see the following items as required for any 
meaningful remedy of Microsoft's conduct:
--Obligate Microsoft to include support for the Java platform 
in Windows, as asked for by the attorneys general of California and 
other states.
--Require Microsoft to make available to the general public 
(not just selected companies that Microsoft likes) the full details 
of formats used for storing data in files and databases.
--Require Microsoft to make available to the general public 
(not just selected companies that Microsoft likes) the full details 
of any networking protocols it uses to communicate between 
computers.
    The importance of the last two points cannot be overstated. The 
most credible competition to Microsoft is coming from software 
developed in non-profit settings

[[Page 30294]]

such as university labs and loosely-knit cooperative consortiums 
(the so-called ``Open Source'' community). The proposed 
settlement would deliberately exclude these most promising sources 
of Competition from access to Microsoft file and network protocol 
information, which would be a grievous error at this stage of 
remediation.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Cole D. Thompson
    Senior Web Developer, Kaiser Permanente



MTC-00033821

Charles Bennington
Oddcast Inc.
589 8th Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
December 20, 2001
RE: US v. Microsoft proposed final order
    In my position as Chief Systems Architect for Oddcast, Inc., a 
software company based in New York, I have had the opportunity to 
observe the effects of Microsoft's monopolies on our business and 
our competitors.
    I am writing to submit my comments on the proposed final order 
in the antitrust case against Microsoft. The remedies described in 
order do not seem at all satisfactory and will have a negative 
effect for business who wish to compete with Microsoft.
    First off, the fact that the structural remedy initially ordered 
by Judge Jackson has been abandoned is quite disturbing. Judge 
Jackson reached his conclusions after being involved in the case for 
a long time. His proposed remedies were a reaction not just to the 
severity of the crime but also to the manipulative manner in which 
Microsoft behaved--and continues to behave.
    The new remedies are not strong enough to penalize a company 
that has not only been found to violate antitrust law, but which has 
also failed to abide by previous agreements made between Microsoft 
and the DOJ. And of equal importance and urgency, the remedies to 
not look sufficient to curb Microsoft's tendencies toward anti-
competitive behavior now and in the future.
    The provisions in J1 and J2 are becoming widely recognized as 
providing too much opportunity for Microsoft to inhibit 
interoperability with software considered part of the free software 
movement. Several free software programs are considered significant 
competitors to Microsoft's products. This is acknowledged even by 
Microsoft. Microsoft should not be allowed to limit access to 
information used in programs such as Apache or the Linux operating 
system just because there is no commercial body responsible for 
these software products. While the software itself may be not for 
profit, there are many business that depend upon this software to 
make their profits and Microsoft should not be allowed to shut them 
out. I believe that the provisions in J1 and J2 will have a negative 
effect on the ability for business to compete with Microsoft and 
will help to expand Microsoft's current monopolies and provide 
Microsoft with opportunities to establish new monopolies.
    The term of the agreement as proposed is too short. While the 
software industry itself is dynamic, the basic behavior of 
monopolies is not and five to seven years is not long enough to 
ensure that Microsoft's anti-competitive practices will be curbed.
    The Justice department should not allow Microsoft to have such 
control over the proposed Technical Committee. Microsoft should not 
be allowed to appoint any members of the Technical Committee. I 
cannot imagine why a company found to be in violation of the law 
would be allowed to choose any member of it's oversight committee, 
especially when there are only three members. By allowing Microsoft 
to place someone of their choosing, they will have influence over 
the selection of the third member which could mean that the 
committee starts out with a two thirds pro-Microsoft majority. The 
Justice Department should be responsible for the appointment of all 
three members.
    The level of secrecy surrounding the actions of the Technical 
Committee will also have a negative effect on it's ability to stay 
honest and fair. And the fact that they will be paid for and managed 
by Microsoft should remove even the last scrap of objectivity from 
the committee. If this proposal is to work, the Technical Committee 
will need to be restructured so that it has greater independence and 
more power.
    Over all, I think that the proposed final order is not strong 
enough and should be reevaluated. In the seven years that Microsoft 
has been involved in proceedings with the Department of Justice, 
they have not seen their business harmed. Instead they have grown 
dramatically and further reinforced their monopoly position in many 
areas. They have openly flaunted consent decrees and tied up the 
investigation of their actions in a manner which only a company 
which can accumulate billions of dollars a year from its 
monopolistic position is able. The proposed remedies only serve to 
reinforce the status quo under which Microsoft has been allowed to 
grow unchecked--despite having been found to have violated the 
law. Without stronger remedies, Microsoft will only continue to 
stifle competition.
    Sincerely
    Charles Bennington



MTC-00033822

November 28, 2001
Robert H. Frudenberg
1109 Palm Drive
Burlingame, California
94010-3712
Renate Hesse
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
U.S. DOJ
601 D Street NW Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Sir,
    It is most fortunate the Europeans are taking a more serious 
stand against Microsoft than the U.S. I find that Microsoft has 
quashed most competition by requiring dealers to install no other 
operating system on new computers if they want to sell Windows.
    Also, the proposed settlement of giving used computers to 
schools is preposterous. That is not a penalty. A penalty for a 
monopoly would be a breakup of major parts to allow competition to 
begin again. Microsoft should be required to release source code to 
developers so their products can work with windows OS and have no 
blue screens.



MTC-00033823

28 November 2001
Renata Hesse, trial attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D St., Suite 1200
Washington, DC, 20530
    Ms Hesse,
    I would like to comment on the proposed Microsoft settlement. As 
an independent software developer who has been unemployed for most 
of the last 14 months, I very much feel the economic recession. 
Although the ``dot-com'' bust is undoubtedly a reason for 
the current lack of jobs, it is the predatory monopolistic practices 
of Microsoft Corporation which I feel is the main reason for the 
situation so many of us independent software developers find 
ourselves in.
    The FUD, (fear, uncertainty and doubt) fostered by Microsoft's 
actions with regards to the Java programming language has severely 
limited the expansion of Internet software capabilities and the 
attendant programmer employment. Also, the way Microsoft has 
positioned its ``.NET'' strategy, as an alternative to the 
current Internet experience, rather then positioning it as an 
embrace and extend, has stagnated the development of Internet based 
computer applications. As an individual who chooses to develop and 
deploy Internet solutions on non-Microsoft software platforms, this 
has locked me out of business opportunities.
    The three pillars of justice: restraint, rehabilitation and 
retribution are not adequately addressed by this proposal. While a 
measure of rehabilitation needs time for accountability, the 
settlement provides no relief from the monopolistic force of 
Microsoft s Internet browser, why is it that this is permitted? 
Microsoft must be forced to market their browser independent from 
their operating system. Also there is no retribution available to 
the thousands of companies and the over hundred thousand engineers 
who have been affected by Microsoft's actions. The Microsoft 
education proposal is a mockery of accounting and a piece of candy 
for Microsoft's thrust into education. I spent five years on the 
Riverview School District technology committee which is in King 
County, Washington; and a third of that time was spent trying to 
prevent the takeover of the computer resources by those who 
mistakenly believe that a single computer supplier is beneficial to 
the educational system.
    I have encountered the lies, sabotage and intimidation of 
Microsoft for fifteen years now and I'm angry about the situation. I 
have enclosed a link to my resume, from which you can see I have 
been involved in software development which includes important work 
I did for the Apollo Space Program. 
    Baiss Eric Magnusson  [email protected]

[[Page 30295]]

    Cascade Web Design  Software Design and Consulting, 

    32307 NE 193rd St.  Specializing in WebObjects & 
Java
    Duvall, WA. 98019  425-788-2394



MTC-00033824

Post Office Box 3754
Oakland, CA 94609
6 December 2001
Ms. Renate Hesse,
Trial Attorney, Antitrust Division
Dept. of Justice
Suite 1200
601 D Street NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Renate Hesse:
    RE: public comments on proposed settlement of U.S. Government 
vs. Microsoft Corporation in the matter of alleged monopolistic 
business practices.
    The proposed settlement of the lawsuit of U.S. government vs. 
Microsoft Corporation is totally inadequate to rein in the past, 
continuing and growing abuses by Microsoft Corporation in the 
production, distribution and sale of their Windows and other 
software products.
    After almost twenty years of bullying competitors with illegal 
monopolistic tactics, after being convicted in Federal court of 
serious and repeated violations of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, after 
destroying the market shares of Dr. DOS, Lotus123, WordPerfect and 
Netscape Internet browser softwares with illegal bundling, 
exclusionary contracts and other heavy-handed tactics, the mighty 
Microsoft Corporation has now condescended to allow PC manufacturers 
to ``delete the Internet Explorer icon'' from the starting 
Windows screen. Wow. The mind boggles.
    Is the mighty Microsoft Corporation actually making a real 
concession to the concept of free market competition? Sorry. Its 
just another cheap MS trick to be allowed to continue their illegal 
and immoral monopolizing and bullying ways. Microsoft is trying to 
leverage its Windows PC operating system monopoly into dominating 
the Internet with its Explorer Browser, its home web page, 
microsoft.com and its latest offerings of its new Windows XP 
operating system.
    Microsoft Corporation should not be allowed to expand into any 
new areas of technology, be it on the Internet or elsewhere. To 
date, Microsoft Corporation has shown very little if any 
understanding of fair play, fair competition or moral behavior. They 
are obviously in need of severe discipline.
    The U.S. government should levy a fine of twenty billion dollars 
as just punishment for past monopolistic and illegal business 
practices over the last two decades. The consumers of the U.S. have 
been negatively affected by the bullying behavior of Microsoft 
Corporation.
    Yours truly,
    James K. Sayre



MTC-00033825

OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
SAN FRANCISCO
WILLIE LEWIS
BROWN, JR.
January 7, 2002
Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division
US Department of Justice
601 D Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530-0001
Re: Comments of the Microsoft Proposed Settlement Agreement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    Microsoft is a company that has long provided good products to 
consumers and businesses, and it provides opportunities for other 
software companies as well to develop programs for the Windows 
platform. The provisions of the settlement, worked out with one of 
the nation's top mediators, will be good for consumers, businesses, 
the tech sector and the economy as a whole. I fully support the 
Department of Justice and the nine Attorneys General for their 
efforts to finally put an end to this case and agree to a settlement 
that is in our nation's best interest.
    Sincerely,
    WLB/cc
    1 DR. CARLTON B.GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 200, SAN FRANCISCO, 
CALIFORNIA
    94102-4681
    (415) 554-6143
    RECYCLED PAPER



MTC-00033826

Chun-Wai Chan
5555 S. Everett Ave., Suite E3
Chicago, IL 60637
773-324-8190
Fax: 773-324-8190
December 14, 2001
Ms. Renata B. Hesse
Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Dept. of Justice and States Settlement with Microsoft
    Ms. Hesse,
    I am writing to express my concern and disappointment with the 
Dept. of Justice's proposed settlement with Microsoft. I would like 
to exercise my rights under the Tunney Act and have my views entered 
in the following Federal records:
    1. I ask that my following comments be accepted during the 60 
day period after the proposed Final Judgment is published in the 
Federal Register.
    2. I asked that my comments along with responses to them be 
published in the Federal Register.
    3. I ask that my comments and the responses to them be filed 
with the court examining this settlement.
    I believe the concessions made by Microsoft in the proposed 
settlement are inadequate in restraining their predatory and 
monopolistic practices in the computer industry. In particular 
Microsoft has too great a lattitude deciding what consitutes its 
middleware and what constitutes its core operating system.
    The alternative settlement submitted for review by the nine 
states opposed to the current Dept. of Justice settlement closes 
many loopholes which can and will be exploited by Microsoft. I 
therefore urge the Department of Justice to adopt the new settlement 
proposed by the States Attorneys of CA, MA, CT, UT and the other 5 
states opposed to the original proposed settlement.
    Sincerely,
    Chun-Wai Chan
    Naturalized Citizen of the United States of America
    Registered Independent Voter in the 4th Ward of the City of 
Chicago



MTC-00033829

From: Rufus Polson
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/22/02 12:37 pm
Subject: Proposed Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Officers of Justice,
    I should note before beginning that I am Canadian, and as such 
lack standing in a United States proceeding. But it has been 
suggested to me that it would, nonetheless, not be improper to 
submit a respectfully phrased opinion, and I have serious concerns 
about this matter.
    My first worry about the proposed settlement is that it cannot 
be enforced. The only penalty for noncompliance with the settlement, 
as I understand it, is that the settlement may be extended for two 
years. But how much effect can this have? Surely a company failing 
to comply with a settlement would have little trouble continuing for 
two more years to fail to comply. The history of Microsoft's 
behaviour suggests that failing to comply with a settlement is 
within the scope of their normal actions; the likelihood of this 
happening must be taken into account in any settlement, with 
noncompliance penalties on a scale sufficient to create strong 
disincentive even to such a massive entity.
    My second is the lack of any penalty. In a country in which the 
criminal law strongly endorses retribution and deterrence as 
principles of justice, and in which corporations are legal entities 
with much of the rights and standing of persons, it seems 
appropriate to keep in mind the principles that are routinely 
applied to persons when dealing with corporate lawbreaking. This is 
the more true for corporations such as Microsoft in which the 
direction is so clearly set by a very few individuals, whose 
fortunes and identities are wrapped up closely in the corporation. 
In short, Microsoft as a corporation is guilty of a serious 
crime--this has been established. Microsoft as a corporation 
should be seen to be penalized, so that other corporations and their 
administrations realize that illegal monopolist tactics will not 
cause their companies to prosper.
    My third is the weakness of much of the language, such that many 
things which the settlement appears on the surface to prohibit are 
in fact not prohibited in any serious way, whereas it seems that 
others still can be twisted in such a manner as to actually 
legitimize practises that would not normally be considered 
acceptable. Many other submissions, as I understand it, have gone 
into detail on these issues. I will not spend words describing them 
yet again.
    Another problem is the inspectors. Their powers are unclear, and 
should be strongly

[[Page 30296]]

specified. The selection process seems inappropriate--why 
should Microsoft have a voice in selecting their watchdog? It is 
like letting a drug dealer vote on his parole officer. In addition, 
it seems as if they are to be paid by Microsoft--this is 
another damper on independence. It seems more reasonable that 
Microsoft should disburse a sum immediately, sufficient for their 
payment for the entire duration of the settlement, and the 
Department of Justice should pay them out of that sum.
    Finally, the settlement seems of marginal impact even in its 
intent. Even if one were to ensure that it was complied with, clean 
up ambiguities in language so that the compliance reflects what some 
of the broader statements indicate to be the intent, and empower 
inspection sufficiently well to verify compliance, the results seem 
unlikely to curb Microsoft's anti-competitive behaviour to any great 
extent. Rather, it seems likely that Microsoft will be forced to 
curtail a few fringe practises, leaving the general pattern 
untouched and perhaps pushing them to intensify new anti-competitive 
practises in areas such as the internet and encryption, where they 
might take advantage of such laws as the DMCA to use proprietary 
encryption schemes and claim any attempt to interoperate with their 
encrypted files to be illegal.
    In short, the proposed settlement is flabby and overspecific 
even in its intent--no tiger capable of reining such a massive 
organization, but a tabby cat. Its actual wording makes it a paper 
tabby. Let us not forget that this is a corporation with such 
contempt for the administration of justice that they presented 
falsified evidence to the trial court (their so-called demonstration 
of Windows 98 running slower without Internet Explorer, which was a 
mockup fabricated for the sole purpose of deceiving the 
court--an action which would have surely left any ordinary 
defendant facing additional charges for perjury and/or contempt of 
court); how likely is it that they will comply with any judicial 
decision one micron farther than they are absolutely compelled to? 
How likely is it, in fact, that any settlement without a major 
structural component will impact Microsoft's practises in any 
significant way? In the absence of structural remedies, it is at 
least essential that any settlement present a comprehensive 
catalogue of practises which are absolutely barred, presented in 
ironclad language, with massive, immediate penalties for deviation. 
And if this case is to deter others from similar practises and, in 
general, pass the message that antitrust law remains alive in the 
United States, it should involve a substantial penalty for past 
anticompetitive actions.
    Respectfully yours,
    Rufus Polson



MTC-00033830

From: Walter Schulz
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/23/02 9:48 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    There are many factors which render the proposed final judgement 
both ineffective and incomplete. One argument which bears the burden 
of many industry concerns is that of Dan Kegel's open letter to the 
DOJ (http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html). This references his 
essay on the topic which can be found at(http://www.kegel.com/
remedy/remedy2.html). These documents are well written and contain 
much information overlooked by the drafters of the PFJ. I have asked 
that my name be added to the open letter. Even these points do not 
complete the argument against Microsoft's monopolistic activities, 
It is evident that the drafters of the judgement have not been 
educated to a sufficient understanding of the enormous technical 
details which comprise the history of Microsoft's monopoly. These 
are, of course, too many to be discussed in a brief email. Please 
however consider the following:
    * Microsoft's policy of trademarking common industry terms (such 
as ``windows'', ``office'', quo;access'', 
etc.) To the end of excluding competitors'' use of standard 
terms in the names of their products. ``Windows'' for 
example is a name in use by the ``X Windows'' system for 
the Unix well before ``Microsoft Windows'' came to market.
    * Microsoft's habit/policy of modifying standard programming 
languages (to optimize them for the Microsoft Windows platform) and 
passing them off as the original standards. This is demonstrated in 
the development of ``Microsoft Visual C++'(a 
``version'' of the C++ programming language for 
``Microsoft Windows') and J++(a ``version'' of Sun 
Microsystems'' Java programming language. Since the suit with 
Sun, Microsoft has begun calling their version ``Active X') 
Sadly, programmers who are educated using Microsoft's non-standard 
language versions may have difficulty writing for any platform but 
``Microsoft Windows'' since these versions do not use 
standard development libraries. Thus the pool of development talent 
for competing operating systems is effectively decreased by flooding 
the market with these altered languages.
    Thank you for your time. I wish you all the luck you will 
certainly need in effectively considering judgements in this case.
    Sincerely,
    Walter A. Shultz
    Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
    Electronics Technician
    [email protected]



MTC-00033831

From: Dagny Haug
To: ``microsoft.atr(a)usdoj.gov''
Date: 1/23/02 11:16 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
The settlement is *not* a good idea.
Dagny Haug
Associate Program Director
Edina Technical Education Center
University of Minnesota
http://www.cce.umn.edu/infotech/
    Time is the coin of your life. It is the only coin you have, and 
only you can determine how it is spent. Be careful lest other people 
spend it for you. 
    Carl Sandburg



MTC-00033832

From: Mike Foley
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/24/02 11:29 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    Hello Judge,
    I'm am writing this message to convey my opinion on the 
Microsoft settlement.
    I feel that Microsoft is guilty of the charges brought by the 
government. I am greatly disappointed at the settlement. I read it 
the day it was released and quite frankly, I was appalled. And then 
to read a few weeks later, Microsoft's proposed settlement in civil 
suits where Microsoft would give computers and software to the 
education market told me that Microsoft has not learned. The 
proposed settlement would have devastated Apple Computer's lead in 
the education market!
    I used to work for Digital Equipment Corporation. I ``heard 
stories'', many first hand, of the practices Microsoft used to 
great effect against DEC. Stories of ``acquired'' 
technologies, of Mr. Gates asking that competing technologies be 
cancelled, of Microsoft not pushing DEC's Alpha chip. Yes, they are 
``stories'' Many were settled in out of court settlements 
so that we'll never know the final truth, but they are indicative of 
business practices practiced by a monopoly
    To fairly settle this court action, I propose the following: 
(Not limited to these, just some things I believe should be 
addressed)
    Open standards of document formats. Microsoft Office is the 
standard. Allow other companies to compete on form and function and 
innovation.
    A business practices oversight committee that has real power to 
keep Microsoft in check Microsoft should have no say in who would be 
on this committee
    Limit Microsoft's expansion into media They have MSN, MSNBC, 
etc.. I don't want to watch ``All Microsoft, All the 
time''. People who don't know better will see Microsoft on TV 
and on their computer and be ``locked in''. How does 
someone compete fairly when everything says 
``Microsoft''?? If anything needs to be split from the 
main company, it's the media portion. It is truly scary.
    Mandate government use of alternatives to Microsoft products. 
There's no good reason for the government to be feeding a monopoly. 
There are excellent operating systems out there. (Linux, Open VMS, 
HP UX, etc..)
    Mandate to Microsoft that the government will only use open 
standard formats for things like documents and programming, and 
networking interfaces Microsoft must stop practicing ``embrace 
and extend'' where they take an open standard, add their 
extensions, and lock out others. In conclusion, I would hope that 
the court will ensure that Microsoft does not walk away from this 
with an slap on the wrist and a virtual ``ok'' to continue 
its predatory practices
    I thank you for your time and your patience in reading this 
message.
    mike
    [email protected]
    http://www.yelof.com



MTC-00033833

From: Michael James Langford
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/25/02 11:56 am
Subject: Simple to implement remedys.
    Dear Sirs,

[[Page 30297]]

    Microsoft clearly has maintained a monopoly via unlawful means. 
They do not deserve the public's trust, as they do not have our best 
interest in mind.
    Most behavioral or structural remedies are too hard to 
effectively enforce on an adaptable company such as Microsoft. So 
instead affect a policy change for the Federal Government through 
careful restrictions on Microsoft.
    Switch the entire federal government over from MS office and 
mail products to other companies products like Sun Microsystem's 
StarOffice products. Use an open file format, such as Rich Text, 
Html, or Latex as the standard for documents. Word documents can be 
easily changed over to these types through its SaveAs command, and 
this process can be automated through simple programs most 
programmers could write in a couple hours.
    This sounds like an expensive switch over. Have Microsoft pay 
for the manpower to switch over all agencies. Make them split the 
cost of any new licenses 50%/50%.
    To make this switch within the power of the court, you would 
have to phrase the judgement in a way similar to:
    All licenses granted to the federal government of Microsoft 
Office 95, Office 97, Office 2000, and Office XP are hereby revoked. 
(The contracts cancelled).
    A new 5 year license is given in lieu of the old license of each 
copy of that software.
    Microsoft may not issue new licenses to the government for any 
Non-Operating System product. Microsoft may not bundle any office 
productivity software into its Operating Systems. This is in effect 
for the next 10 years.
    Microsoft will pay all labor costs associated with switching to 
new office products, as well as 50% of the cost of all replacement 
software.
    Any state or municipal governments may also have these same 
terms if they request it.
    This seems to be an easy to enforce and equitable judgement that 
can be levied against Microsoft as a punishment, and does not cost 
any party but Microsoft an undue expense, while still being fair to 
Microsoft.
    The only party remaining to be dealt with is the OEM's who have 
been forced into licensing contracts with Microsoft. To remedy that 
situation, allow any of them to cancel their contracts with 
Microsoft at any time in the next 5 years, and enforce a single 
PUBLISHED price for all OEM software purchases of Microsoft 
software. Allow compulsory licencing to at that price to any OEM 
that wants it.
    Thank you for your time.
    Yours truly,
    Michael Langford



MTC-00033834

From: [email protected]@inetgw
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 9:41 am
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    I am opposed to the current Microsoft settlement. Others, more 
eloquent than I, will detail the reasons why this proposal will not 
restore competition in the marketplace or provide sufficient cause 
for Microsoft to change their monopolistic behavior. As a software 
professional with over twenty years experience and whose 
undergraduate course of study was in computer science, I have 
watched as Microsoft has continually impeded innovative 
developments. Microsoft follows a fairly consistent plan:
    (1) Ignore the innovation (e.g., web browser, disk compression, 
java, etc.) until it can no longer be ignored. Then,
    (2) Respond to the innovation by saying that it is without 
merit. When this is insufficient to keep the innovation from the 
market,
    (3) Either buy the developer of the innovation or 
``partner'' with them. ``Partnering allows 
Microsoft the time to develop the software in-house. Once the in-
house version is ready, Microsoft will ruthlessly 
``bundle'' it into their offering at ``no additional 
cost'' thereby destroying the market for the original 
developer. Finally,
    4) Claim the innovation was due to Microsoft in the first place.
    For the good of the consumer, market, industry, and country this 
anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior must stop. Based on the 
the past behavior of Microsoft, with respect to previous Department 
of Justice actions, there is nothing which suggests that Microsoft 
will follow the spirit, or even the letter, of the current proposed 
settlement. They have consistently flaunted the law and have treated 
any cost or enforcement action as a normal ``cost of doing 
business.'' Without any meaningful competition they can do this 
with impunity.
    I would encourage the Department to re-evaluate this far too 
lenient settlement and devise a solution which, even in the face of 
determined Microsoft attempts at circumvention, will help restore 
competition and innovation to the marketplace.
    Sincerely,
    Steven C. Johnson -bs scj at marcsys 
period com
    13906 Flint Rock Road -bs
    Rockville, Maryland 20853-2649 U.S.A. 
-bs



MTC-00033835

From: Tal Eidelberg
To: Microsoft ATR
Date: 1/27/02 8:58 pm
Subject: Microsoft Settlement
    The final settlement proposal by the United States, suggests 
sanctions that will be imposed on the Microsoft Corporation. These 
sanctions are supposed to imply that the US government and 
department of law disapprove of Microsof's monopoly over the PC 
operating system market, and Microsoft's use of this monopoly to 
dominate other markets, such as the web browser market. My opinion 
is that it is not right for the government to intervene with the 
natural selection of the software industries, and that such an 
intervention ultimately does not help the markets, the customers.
    Looking back to the 1990s, it is obvious that the PC market has 
undergone a revolution. The main change was that PCs became user-
friendly, and that almost any average non-programmer could use them. 
Because of this new user-friendly style, the PCs became very 
popular, their prices dropped, and the new now-affordable computers 
were summoned to help in many places where they were desperately 
needed. The upbringing of this revolution, by all means, should be 
accredited to one organization, the Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft 
Corporation through many years of dedicated, complex software 
development, had built an operating system that is unbelievably 
simple to operate and is intuitive enough for a seven-year-old child 
to handle. The qualities of the windows operating system series is 
the sole reason that Microsoft originally became successful, and 
therefore Microsoft is rightfully dominating the PC operating system 
market, which Microsoft fostered. The inclusion of Microsoft's 
Internet Explorer for free with the windows 98 operating system is a 
one hundred percent legitimate market strategy. I believe that a 
company that develops a widespread product, such as Microsoft's 
Windows operating system, it should hold the right to further add 
and develop that product as it sees suitable for the company's 
benefit. Software markets are fast moving, and companies rise and 
fall fairly quickly. This is for no other reason but the fast moving 
pace of technological advances of our century. There is no guarantee 
for any one company that its product will be required in the near 
future. Microsoft has done a great job in surviving the cut-throat 
competition of the software technology market, and along the way 
defined and introduced many standards such as COM software objects, 
which left the entire software developer world swayed with 
astonishment. The intervention on the behalf of the government by no 
means helps the customers. Customers who wish to use non-Microsoft 
operating systems are free to choose form an array of products such 
as Unix, Linux and OS2 to name a few. By forcing Microsoft to allow 
competitors to create new operating systems, the government is 
actually lowering the standards of competition that were defined by 
the natural market. The end result is that the customers get lower 
standard software, and eventually the PC software market will gain a 
low quality reputation that will decrease the market's scope.
    The employment of unlawful techniques to maintain monopoly, or 
to achieve goals should be forbidden and fought. In the case of 
Microsoft's offer to Netscape where it was suggested that Netscape 
does not compete in the operating system market, and in return 
Microsoft does not compete in the web browser market, it is clear 
that the intention of Microsoft was to unlawfully maintain a 
Monopoly. A situation such as this obviously hurts customers and the 
market, and therefore should be dealt with and punishment should be 
sought in a rightful magnitude. This, however, should not imply that 
all of Microsoft's actions are unlawful and should be constrained. 
As it seems Microsoft controls the operating system market today. 
There is, however, no guarantee that the future will be as fortunate 
for Microsoft as the past had been. In today's free competition 
markets, Netscape can use the same techniques used by Microsoft and 
distribute a free version of Unix for example with their web browser 
Navigator product. Free competition is the basis for a great 
economy, and therefore the government

[[Page 30298]]

should not intervene, unless companies act unlawfully.
    Tal Eidelberg



MTC-00033836

From: Casey Keller
To: Microsoft ATR
Date:
Subject: Microsoft Settlement 1/28/02 2:28 am
    To the Honorable Department of Justice--
    It is as a student, a technician, and an end-user that I wish to 
add my comments as per the Tunney Act concerning the settlement 
proposed by the corporation in question, Microsoft.
    Before I begin individually laying out my reasons for my views, 
I must first denounce the proposed settlement as a mockery of 
justice, the institution of the courts, the welfare of the consumer, 
and the sensibility of the media and the general public.
    We speak of punishment of criminals yet we are prepared to enact 
a double standards of rewards for crimes of business.
    The practice of the Microsoft Corporation has been established 
as a violation of antitrust laws. From the packaging of the Internet 
Explorer web browser with its operating system, fully integrate it 
with the operating system of Windows to its current methods of 
furthering the hold on the software industry with Microsoft Office, 
Windows Media Player, built-in firewall for XP, .NET system, and the 
coupling of Microsoft Network with Windows XP, or its suit over the 
Windows names. This case began in 1995 and now in 2002 we are 
willing to settle with a turn of our backs.
    I could list piece-by-piece what I view as theft by this Giant. 
I could easily attempt to make my case that Microsoft has not 
produced, in general, a product solely of its own without building 
it or modeling it from a product of another company. Whether it is 
the windowing system concept (Macintosh), DOS (Caldera),Start Menu 
(Apple), Terminal Services (Symantec's pcAnywhere / AT&T Virtual 
Network Computing), firewall and multiple logins (unix, Linux 
iptables/ipchains). I could sit and justify the vantage that the 
richest man in the United States built his fortune upon the backs of 
stolen ideas. A criminal never brought to trial.
    As a student, I am dishearten to see the movements in the 
university systems to be Microsoft-centric. Database classes are 
taught with Access, programs are to be written with Visual Basic/
C++/J++, web design is taught via Frontpage, and the operating 
system of choice for labs is Microsoft Windows. At what cost? If you 
are to look at the per-seat licensing of Microsoft we are spending 
fortunes on software at the cost of a broad education. We learn by 
the bloated non-standards and hope that we can push in the real 
world. We fail to learn systems outside the deal.
    As a technician for an internet service provider, I am force to 
witness first hand the limiting force of a monopoly. When a call 
comes in the first generalized question that comes to the client is, 
``What version of Windows are you running?'', followed by 
``What version of Internet Explorer are you running?''. 
Common issues are virii, tcp/ip stack failures, win modem 
initialization strings, corrupt executables of Windows components. 
Because Internet Explorer is intergrated with the Windows operating 
system, the user interface is slower, if Internet Explorer blows up 
you lose the stability of your system, and users are unable to 
regress to a previous version or remove the faulty component. 
Security is negligible, the mail system is a petri dish for virii, 
and the networking leaves much to be desired. On a day-to-day basis, 
I have to deal with problems of Windows ``forgetting'' 
settings and devices or perpetuating unneeded data in the way of 
networking addresses. Hardware compatibility is greatly reduced as 
it as modems are software based (``winmodems''). Internet 
access setup is hindered by the persistence of MSN (The Microsoft 
Network) in terms of web browsing, messaging, dial-up networking, 
and communications compatibility.
    As an end-user, I cannot help but to feel that I have been 
violated. I used in-house networking to share information between my 
laptop, my sister's computer, and my home system. My laptop is an 
Apple Powerbook running Mac OS X, my desktop is Redhat Linux 7.2, 
and my sister's machine is Windows 2000 Professional. I have had to 
run numerous security updates on Windows 2000 and its predecessor 
Windows 98. XP, which I had test ran has holes in security large 
enough to sail the US Navy through. Non-Microsoft programs are 
``crash-proned'' by the operating system. I cannot help to 
feel that as a consumer I the Warranty of Mercantibility failed to 
apply to Microsoft products. I deal with file sharing 
compatibilities with SMB RPC calls. I feal cheated. The cost is 
high-way robbery.
    In an industry where compatibility is a necessity, Microsoft 
continues to violate standards in security, networking, programming. 
Its movement to control the wealth of the industry has damaged the 
industry and the economy of the United States of America. We cannot 
pretend that keeping the ingrediants in one pantry allows every one 
to taste the pie. Unemployment, job cuts, and damages are left in 
the wake of postponed action.
    The proposed settlement is not a punitive settlement, but an 
extension in guise that fails to be in the best interests of 
justice, consumers, and the general populace. The 
``donation'' of monopoly software to an area where the 
monopoly is not in existence is the furtherment of the monopoly. It 
is the allowing of Park Place and Boardwalk with hotels to reap 
Community Chest.
    On the other hand, I agree with the proposed settlement of 
Redhat. Let Microsoft purchase The equipment, let another software 
vendor provide the software. Software that is not terms limited, 
useragreement stipulated, bug-ridden, security questionable, and 
compatibility hell. I would further like to propose the removable of 
Internet Explorer and Media Player from current and future versions 
of the Windows OS along with the shutdown of the Microsoft Network. 
Do not allow one trust for another another. Anything short of this 
would be unfair when you look at the settlement that prevent 
AT&T from developing Unix and establishing its lead role in the 
computer industry.
    I apologize that my statements here are more brief than I had 
intended and may not be as clear and concise as I feel that is 
needed to set a better light on this blite.
    However, in closing I wish to ask that the Department of Justice 
act as a doctor and treat this case as curable form of the AIDS 
retrovirus. Medicare it. Prevent it from injecting and taking over 
new cells. Prevent it from disabling the guards against it. I also 
wish to ask the the Deparment of Justice to act as a strong Prime 
Minister. Do not do an appease. Europe settled to give Hitler one 
victory, but found that one eventually equated to many. Politics and 
history often meet with business to form one. Apply it.
    Sincerely,
    Casey W. Keller
    1255 Mountain Glen Circle
    Morganton, North Carolina 28655
    United States of America
    h: 828.438.8543
    828.438.1550
    c: 828.443.0515
    e: [email protected]



MTC-00033837

BFI Waste Services of Charlotte
January 17, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
Subject: Support for Microsoft Settlement
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    For more than 20 years, I have worked in different aspects of 
the waste management industry. During that time, I have seen 
dramatic changes in my industry as well as the overall economy. 
Certainly the use of technology has dramatically changed the way 
business is done. The waste industry is much more efficient and more 
capable of keeping track of equipment, waste sites and a variety of 
other aspects of our work because of technology.
    I have watched the antitrust litigation against Microsoft with 
interest not only because of the impact on technology but also the 
impact it could hve on innovation and product development. While not 
a panacea for the concerns voiced by computer makers and software 
developers, the proposed settlement agreement will give them new 
rights to configure Windows so that non-Microsoft products can be 
used. Microsoft has also agreed to the establishment of a technical 
committee to monitor progress of the settlement and to provide a 
venue for concerns of computer makers, software developers and 
consumers.
    Microsoft will have the freedom to continue efforts to develop 
new and innovatice products. Innovation is key in this country's 
ability to thrive in a global marketplace where foreign competitors 
try to replicate our products and sell them at cheaper prices to 
undercut our economic growth.
    The proposed settlement agreement provide protections to all 
involved in this

[[Page 30299]]

industry-- Microsoft itself, its competitors, computer 
manufacturers, information technology providers and, most important 
of all, the consumer. From my own experience, I know how difficult 
it is to come up with a compromise. I encourage a quick resolution 
to the litigation so the technology industry can focus on regaining 
its competitive edge in the world economy.
    Sincerely,
    Tony Davies
    5105A Morehead Road . Concord, NC 28027 . (704) 393-6900 . 
Fax (704) 782-2177



MTC-00033838

Products Inc.
Creek Road, FF-202
Charlotte, North Carolina 23205
Phone 704-373-9889
Toll Free 888-332-2888
January 22, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms Hesse
    I am writing in support of the proposed settlement in the United 
States v. Microsoft case. The Antitrust laws were meant to protect 
consumers, not to stop market competition.
    As a small business owner, I believe this proposal will not 
penalize other competing operating systems. This proposed settlement 
encourages more competition and greater innovation. All new
    Microsoft operating systems, including Windows XP, would have to 
include a mechanism that readily allows end users to remove or re-
enable Microsoft's middleware products, such as the Internet web 
browser.
    We need to be encouraging the technology sector, which is 
critical to our economic recovery. This agreement is good for the 
technology industry, the economy and consumers.
    Sincerely,
    Evan J. Boxer
    President
    EJB/dgb



MTC-00033839

Jan 07 02 02:21p
FROM:
Gary Pearce
FAX NO. :
Grace Chirico
6689 English Ivy Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I write in support of the settlement for the U.S. v. Microsoft 
case. The settlement will end damaging litigation that has harmed 
consumers and dampened innovation among technology companies. It is 
time to end the litigation and to encourage new economic 
opportunities for technology companies as well as provide 
investments in education, having worked as educator for more than 30 
years, I know how important it is to encourage creativity and new 
ideas. Allowing technology companies the opportunity to innovate and 
integrate products without goverment interference will benefit all 
of us. This. is a time when we need to encourage innovation and get 
our economy moving forward. Settlement of this case would be an 
important step in that direction. As a consumer, I need to be able 
to get affordable software that I can rely on. Microsoft products 
are easy to use and allow integration of several software programs 
for consumers who do not have a lot of experience with computer 
programs.
    Grace Chirco



MTC-00033840

Jan 07 02 02:21p Gary Pearce
9197878031
P.3
Summers Consulting Services
Brenda J. Summers, Ed.D.
December 13, 2001
6561 Heorthsiona Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone; 919-847-3184
Fax: 919-841-4220
E-mall: [email protected]
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street. NWI Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20503
    Dear Attorney Hesse;
    I support for the settlement that has been reached with 
Microsoft Corp. in the nationwide product pricing class. actions. 
Consumers have benefited from Microsoft's innovation, which has 
resulted in better products and lower prices.
    The dramatic commitment that Microsoft has announced to the 
public schools will go a long way toward addressing this need. 
Further, it helps put an end to costly and damaging litigation which 
already has gone on too long and caused too much harm to an economy 
that is in recession. The settlement is in everyone's best 
interests. The technology industry, consumers and the economy will 
all benefit to an end to this litigation.
    I know I speak for many Americans who believe that the perfect 
end to this long chapter of litigation would be a settlement that 
invests in educating our children and building our economy.
    Sincerely,
    Brenda J. Summers, Ed. D.



MTC-00033841

Sent By: Town of Llttleton;
978 952 2718;
Jan-10-02 13:59;
Kennard A. Spencer
P.O. Box 381
Littleton MA 01460
January 9, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
6O1 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    As a retiree who depends much upon his investments for income, I 
want to express my concern regarding the ongoing antitrust case 
against Microsoft. I do not deny the Justice Department their right 
to pursue and prosecute violations, but I would hope that they would 
be a little more cognizant of the effects of their actions. 
Antitrust actions are not isolated affairs, and an attempt to punish 
Microsoft for whatever real or perceived offenses has impact on many 
people.
    Ever since the Justice Department. began its action against 
Microsoft, the high tech sector stocks, not only Microsoft but 
others, have plummeted effecting investors nationally, including 
institutional investors such as pension funds. This has caused an 
enormous loss of wealth across the country. I know from 
conversations with many others that I am not alone in seeing the 
obvious connection between the antitrust case and the economic 
slowdown. In such a questionable case of antitrust violation, with 
no apparent victims, shouldn't the government consider the dire 
consequences of its actions?
    It is my understanding that the Justice Department has presented 
the Judge in the case with a settlement agreement they have 
negotiated with Microsoft. For all the reasons cited above, I 
strongly urge you to do whatever you can to see that it happens.
    With sincere respect,
    Kennard A. Spencer



MTC-00033842

Sent By: Town of Littleton;
978 952 2716;
Jan-10-02 13:59;
David C. McCarthy
133 Ashburnham Street
Fitchburg MA 01420
January 7, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    Count me as a consumer and citizen who wants to see the 
government's case against Microsoft Corporation ended. Thirty 
million dollars later, and we come to discover that this was all 
really about some zealous attorneys trying to get the government to 
pick sides in the high-tech marketplace. One doesn't need to be an 
expert at antitrust law to know that Microsoft has not had any 
monopolistic stranglehold on the information industry; just walk 
into any Office Depot, or open any newspaper and see the variety, 
the competition and the falling prices. There is no cause for 
government action here.
    And then comes the likes of proComp, AOL Time `Warner, Sun 
and Oracle, all looking to have the federal government carve out 
special rules and conditions to favor them. This is not what the 
free-market system is all about. It's time to end the feeding 
frenzy, and end the court case. I see that the Justice Department is 
finally looking to settle the case, and that Microsoft has agreed, 
Please, let's just do it. I urge the judge to accept this 
settlement, and we can all get out of this sooner rather than later.

[[Page 30300]]

    Sincerely,
    David C. McCarthy



MTC-00033843

Sent By: Town of Littleton;
978 952 2718;
Jan-10-02 13:59;
Page 4/4
ASA
ALLIANCES
INCORPORATED
Attorney Renata Hesse
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
610 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington DC 20530
January 9,2002
    Dear Attorney Hesse,
    I would like to take this opportunity to voice my opinion during 
the public comment period for the Microsoft antitrust settlement 
proposal. I wholeheartedly support the decision to settle rather 
than litigate, and I applaud the Justice Department for crafting a 
strong resolution which allows Microsoft to remain free to be 
innovative, while protecting the consumer. It is my hope that Judge 
Kollar Kotelly will see this as being in the best interests of the 
country.
    The past few months should give us all cause to stop and 
reflect. We need to be unified as Americans, not only to show 
strength internationally but also to meet the challenges of 
reinvigorating the economy. If we can find a way to settle this 
case, then perhaps both Microsoft and the other companies opposing 
it can get back to developing technology and expanding business; 
This settlement proposal seems to be the best chance we have of 
turning this into a positive for the country.
    Thank you for considering my thoughts on this matter.
    Sincerely,
    Jennifer Lappin



MTC-00033844

Renata Hesse, Esquire
Trial Attorney--Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    For more than three years and at a cost of many million of 
taxpayers' dollars, the United Starts Justice Department has pursued 
an antitrust suit against Microsoft Corporation. As an interested 
taxpayer who has no direct financial interest in this proceeding, I 
strongly believe that the case has had no beneficial impact and that 
the settlement should be approved by the federal court.
    I remember not too many years ago, as a novice computer-user, 
using Prodigy for my Internet service. Prodigy then was rapidly 
supplanted by competitors, just as Microsoft supplemented Apple. The 
lawsuit against Microsoft was largely initiated by a Microsoft 
competitor. Netscape, which is now part of AOL Time Warner, an 
Internet behemoth in and of itself.
    The point is that the marketplace, especially the Internet 
marketplace, has its own way of rewarding and penalizing companies' 
behavior--rapidly and sometimes brutally. The federal 
government, especially the federal courts, cannot respond rapidly 
and intelligently enough, even if it can respond brutally.
    As a former judge and Supreme Court Justice, I know the 
limitations of the courts, and I believe this court has found its 
limits in this case. It believe this view is reflected in the 
decision by the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina to 
accept the settlement. I hope that the courts will now restore good 
sense to the government's oversight of the information-
technology industry.
    Sincerely,
    Phil Carlton



MTC-00033845

Betty Combs Owen
529 Ellynn Drive
Cary, NC 27511
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing to express my support for the settlement under 
consideration in the U.S. Justice Department's antitrust case 
against Microsoft. For the past sixteen years, I have served as 
Executive Director of the Emerging Issues Forum at North Carolina 
State University. Many of our annual forums have focused on the 
remarkable advances in information technology that our nation has 
enjoyed--and the incredible economic growth and opportunities 
that have resulted. Without Microsoft's leadership and innovation, 
these advances might not have happened. Whatever wrongs Microsoft 
may have done in its efforts to compete in this rapidly changing and 
highly challenging field, I do not believe our nation's best 
interests are served by prolonging this litigation. I am pleased 
that the State of North Carolina has accepted the settlement and is 
no longer a party to the action. I hope that the federal courts will 
take the same course.
    The settlement agreement provides an enforcement mechanism that 
will have the resources. access and authority needed to respond 
quickly if there are any future complaints about Microsoft's 
business activities. This mechanism, along with the restrictions 
imposed on Microsoft by the settlement appears to be a fair and 
reasonable way to resolve this matter. I hope that the federal court 
will do so quickly. Thank you for allowing me to express my opinion.
    Sincerely,
    Betty Owen



MTC-00033846

January 14, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am a senior programmer analyst for a National Bank. AS such, I 
have witnessed first hand the negative impact this needless 
litigation has had on the American IT industry. I am in favor of 
Microsoft's willingness to make the concessions they have made in 
the spirit of resolving the lawsuit. However, I believe the terms of 
agreement go too far. For instance, Microsoft agreed to share with 
its competitors' proprietary information it has worked hard to 
develop. Additionally, Microsoft has agreed to the creation of a 
technical oversight committee, which will monitor its business 
practices. This concession goes above and beyond what should be 
expected of Microsoft. The agreement should be approved in its 
present form and no further federal action should be taken.
    I appreciate your efforts to ensure a prompt resolution of this 
suit in the best interests of the American IT industry and the 
American public
    An American IT worker,
    cc: Representative Bob Stump



MTC-00033847

Hew Hampshire Homeowner/Main Street Alliance
30 Norway Hill
Hancock, New Hampshire 03449
888-666-4782
VIA FAX (202) 616 9937
January 11, 2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I am writing on behalf of NH Homeowners/Main Street Alliance to 
encourage you to approve the proposed settlement between the United 
States Department of Justice and Microsoft Corporation.
    Our organization is a consortium of business organizations in 
New Hampshire dedicated to helping the economy of our state while 
also working with local, state and the federal government on issues 
that affect our membership. New Hampshire is very much a high tech 
state ranking second per capita in the number of reside: its working 
in high tech. The Microsoft case is one, which we have followed 
closely.
    A competitive marketplace producing better products, more 
choices, and lower prices is in consumers'' best interest. It 
is imperative that competition be encouraged, in order to provide 
the platform for high quality, innovative products which will 
inevitably benefit consumers as well as the high tech marketplace. 
The continuance of this case has only hurt the economy and the many 
small, medium and even large businesses that have seen their 
fortunes adversely effected in the last year. It is time to put this 
case behind us and get the entire high tech industry focused on 
innovation again and not litigation. It is evident that the 
conclusion of this case is in the best interest of consumers, the 
economy and entire high tech industry.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Lauren Carney



MTC-00033849

Ain't America Great!
1341 College Point

[[Page 30301]]

Winter Park, Florida 32789
January 22, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    I am aware that a settlement has been reached in the Justice 
Department's three-year case against Microsoft. I support the 
settlement, even though I don't believe that the government, MY 
GOVERNMENT, should have even recognized the complaints of their 
competitors in the first place. I think it is in the government's, 
and our best interests to accept the settlement and move on to more 
important matters.
    If it wasn't for Microsoft, I would not be as computer literate 
as I am today, and I'm just and ordinary citizen who has had no 
training, no scholling in use of a computer. I know that there are 
plenty of middle aged and older Americans who have had to learn to 
use this technology on their own. Microsoft products made it easy, 
non-threatening and affordable. Thier products caused the huge 
number of purchases of personal computers and associated items that 
drove our country's economic success and increased productivity in 
the ``90's. I think it is sad that they are being penalized for 
America's success.
    The terms of the settlement are reasonable, despite my objection 
that this case should not have been brought in the first place. 
Microsoft if making changes to prevent any future antitrust 
practices. It has agreed to establish a three-person technical 
committee which will monitor Microsoft's compliance with the 
settlement. Microsoft will use a uniform price list when licensing 
Windows out to the largest 20 computer makers in the United States. 
They have agreed to document and disclose for use by its competitors 
various interfaces that are internal to Window's operating system 
products
    I ask that the government stop spending my resources to penalize 
Microsoft's success and agree to the settlement terms.
    Randy Braden
    cc: Representative Ric Keller



MTC-00033850

Jan 24 02 02:23p
Gary Pearce
9197878031
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
Fax 202-616-9937
[email protected]
Neil J. Rudolph
Vice President
PLAZA ASSOCIATES, INC
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    I sincerely hope that the federal courts finally will put an end 
to the government's pursuit of Microsoft. The national economy has 
been hurt enough, the technology sector has been hurt enough, the 
nation's most important software company has been hurt enough, and 
no damage to the consumer and end user has ever been proven.
    The stock market meltdown and the ongoing layoffs through the 
technology sector demonstrate that this proceeding should be 
stopped. The settlement that has been reached appropriately punishes 
Microsoft and protects against any future anticompetitive behavior. 
It is time to let the marketplace, not the courtroom, determine the 
future of this industry.
    Thank you for your attention.
    Sincerely,
    Neil J. Rudolph



MTC-00033851

2860 Hillcrest Lane
Northbrook, IL 60062
December 7, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This letter is to express my support for the recent agreement 
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. This 
proposed agreement has ended a long three-year court battle brought 
about by the Department of Justice against Microsoft. I have long 
felt that this antritrust suit was unfair. I believe if a person has 
the guts and intelligence to pursue his or her particular dream, 
they should not be punished if they achieve it. Thank you for 
working to settle this.
    But beyond my personal feelings, it is best for the country to 
move on. As you know, Microsoft agreed to a number of provisions 
demanded from the Justice Department, and an oversight committee was 
formed which will monitor Microsoft. No more is needed. Therefore, 
the Department of Justice should not pursue this matter any further. 
We are in a time of great stress in this country. We need to 
allocate our time and money to resolve the obvious problems at hand, 
not keeping arbitrating a settlement that has already been 
negotiated.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Brandt



MTC-00033852

3280 Sportsman Club Road
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
November 30, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft
    I would like to take some time to express my opinion about the 
settlement that was reached between the Department of Justice and 
Microsoft. The settlement brought an end to the three- year 
antitrust dispute, and was fair and just. I also hope that there 
will be no more legal action against the Microsoft Corporation at 
the Federal level.
    I simply do not understand why American taxpayer dollars have 
been misused in the pursuit of litigation against Microsoft. Now 
more than ever, America needs to spend its money more carefully. The 
economy is still suffering from the beginning of this whole dispute, 
and the stock market is in disarray. Microsoft has done much for 
this country and has completely changed the face of the computing 
and technology industries. They need to be allowed to continue 
bringing new and useful products to the marketplace.
    I appreciate your time and consideration on this issue. I am 
happy with the settlement, and urge you not to further trouble 
Microsoft. Thank you.
    Sincerely,
    Donald Burlison



MTC-00033853

From Leon H. CarringtonJanuary 28, 2002
22022 Gloucester Court 3-B
Lexington Park, Md. 20653
To: Renata Hesse, Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
601 D Street, NW Suite 1200
Washington DC 205030
    My name is Leon H. Carrington, I am a citizen of the United 
States and I am herewith submitting my comments regarding the 
Proposed Final Judgement in Civil Action No. 98-1232, United 
States of America v. Microsoft Corporation.
    The government has breached its duty to the public by offering 
the Revised Proposed Final Judgement (Final Judgement) as a Final 
Judgement and settlement in the case United States v. Microsoft 
Corporation. The remedy proposed is not effective for correcting or 
eliminating the violations alleged in the Complaint (Civil Action 
No. 98-1232 (CKK)). The remedy proposed would create more harm 
to the public than the damage alleged due to the fact that the 
proposed remedy would ignore serious allegations and behavior found 
by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to 
be in violation of the Sherman Act; and it would confer upon 
Microsoft powers and authority the market does not allow it to 
possess currently. Thus, the proposed remedy would not be in the 
public interest and would be disastrous for many third parties, 
while greatly benefitting Microsoft.. If the remedy proposed 
includes both the Final Judgement and the Competitive Impact 
Statement, the proposal is wholly inconsistent with the Complaint 
and its allegations due to the fact that the Competitive Impact 
Statement is not even consistent with the Final Judgement which in 
turn is not responsive to the Complaint.
    Specifically, the most glaring and perverse inconsistency is the 
base of nearly all damage rendering the Final Judgement inadequate 
and insulting. That inconsistency is the fact that the Complaint is 
substantially built on the definition of an operating system. The 
Competitive Impact Statement defines an operating system in a manner 
wholly consistent with the Complaint. The Competitive Impact 
Statement definition is in Section III ``Description Of The 
Practices Giving Rise To The Alleged Violations'', subsection B 
``Factual Background'', subsection 1 ``Microsoft's 
Operating System Monopoly''. The Complaint definition is in 
Section IV ``The Relevant Markets'', subsection A
    ``The PC Operating System Market''. Astonishingly, in 
this very subsection the Complaint states truthfully, that No other 
product duplicates of fully substitutes for the

[[Page 30302]]

operating system.'' Yet the Complaint incorrectly states in 
Section IV ``The Relevant Markets'', that ``There are 
two relevant markets. The market for personal computer operating 
systems, and the market for Internet browsers.'' This is 
foolish, indeed. There are two relevant markets. The market for 
personal computer operating systems, and the market for applications 
which includes Internet browsers. Note also that the District Court 
found and the Appeals Court agreed, that Microsoft illegally tied 
its Explorer browser into Windows in a nonremovable way while 
excluding rivals, in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. The 
illegal tie-in also injured certain other application developers 
developing under Windows, who may not have been involved with 
browsers..
    Notwithstanding, the Complaint makes reference to 
``Microsoft's Windows operating system'' in section III 
subsection C. The Complaint refers often to ``Microsoft's 
Windows operating system monopoly''. That an operating system 
enables virtual software unification of the hardware computer 
components and resources, exposing them, and thus facilitates use of 
those resources and components by users (consumers) and 
applications, is a perfectly acceptable and commonly understood 
definition of an operating system. However the Final Judgement 
creates a new class of product called a Microsoft Operating System 
Product (my emphasis) This new class, according to the Final 
Judgement, includes Windows 2000 Profession, Windows XP Home and 
Professional, and their successors. The Final Judgement further 
states in the definition of the term ``Microsoft Operating 
System Product,'' that the code comprising the same 
``shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole 
discretion.'' (Section VI--Definitions) We are lost. In 
spite of the fact that the Competitive Impact Statement recognizes 
what an operating system is, it confers upon the above listed 
Microsoft operating systems the designation ``Microsoft 
Operating System Product''. The new class and the reliance on 
Middleware by the Final Judgement and the Competitive Impact 
Statement, permits Microsoft to evade due penalties for established 
violations and further abuse their operating system monopoly by 
expanding their ``tie-in'' policy and rendering harmed 
ISV's among others, to the status of market irrelevance. This is a 
position Microsoft does not currently enjoy. Allowing Microsoft to 
define what an operating system is ( through their monopoly control 
and now U.S. Justice Department assistance) eliminates the threat of 
Middleware and applications which may compete with Microsoft 
applications. Indeed, applications not yet conceived can be 
preempted until Microsoft ``discovers'' them and adds them 
to their monopoly. For such cause, many people recognize that 
breaking up Microsoft is the best first step in correction of 
alleged and established abuse. Recognizing and enforcing the 
legitimate (in this case) separation of operating system and 
application is the best way to eliminate the basis by which 
Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly operating system caused damage and 
continues to do so. Separating the operating system would encourage 
its owner to make public all feature provided by the underlying 
hardware manufacturers. It would further encourage competion between 
hardware component manufacturers which manufacturers are as much 
victimized by Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly operating system as 
consumers and ISVs by virtue of the fact that hardware components' 
interfaces must suit the Microsoft vision or be excluded. This why 
so many computer software game manufacturers continued to develop 
for DOS well into the late 1990's: the Windows interface denied them 
full access to the functionality that enabled them to distinguish 
themselves and satisfy their customers. No other vertical software 
market had a customer base that allow it or the underlying hardware 
vertical market to ``rebel''. We are missing many new 
innovations.
    Evading the operating system definition eliminates or surely 
deteriorates the possibility of illegal tie-ins. All potential 
beneficiaries of just and reasonable corrections that would have 
been established by faithfully addressing the allegations of the 
also semi-adequate Complaint, are instead further damaged or 
untreated (left damaged) by the Final Judgement. In the Complaint 
Section I subsection 5 it is stated the ``Microsoft's conduct 
includes agreements tying other Microsoft software products to 
Microsoft's Windows operating system; . . .'' The 
effects of these tie-ins are well known but not part of the 
allegations of the Complaint. A Microsoft application with hidden 
interfaces (tie-ins) to the operating system has a chilling effect 
on the development of competitive products and prevents those few 
who may discover this interface from remaining competitive because 
of course, the hidden interface may be changed upon upgrade of 
Microsoft's application or operating system, and the former 
interface removed, thus ``breaking'' the competitors 
application and causing consumers to spend more money unnecessarily. 
This situation also allows Microsoft to occasionally appear to be 
competing on the merits of their offering when such is not the case. 
Promoting middleware as is done in the Complaint, the Final 
Judgement, and the Competitive Impact Statement, does nothing to 
alleviate this problem. As stated in the Complaint and noted above, 
``No other product duplicates or fully substitutes for the 
operating system.'' Indeed, middleware is just another 
application, however useful. Denying ISVs and consumers the benefits 
afforded them by a legitimately marketed bona-fide operating system 
as opposed to an ``Operating System Product'' can not be 
in the public interest, and is not responsive to the Complaint, 
including prior court judgements.
    When the ``Nimda'' computer virus appeared last year, 
I was amazed at how it performed its activities. I was more 
astonished when it occurred to me that I was reading about 
functionality only a person familiar with Microsoft applications 
programming would understand. What astonished me was the fact that 
this and many other common viruses could not occur if Microsoft 
applications were not tied in to the operating system. Operating 
system vulnerabilities are policed, as it were, by the entire 
computing community. Application vulnerabilities are not so well 
noted, because applications other than middleware do not generally 
offer much exposure to the programming consumer, and competition 
keeps them distributed, not concentrated through the entire PC 
universe. This is not the case with Microsoft applications. Commonly 
used Microsoft applications are part of the ``programmers 
toolkit'' for Windows developers. If they were not, the 
anticompetitive position they occupy would be more blatant as only 
Microsoft could interoperate with them, using the exposed underlying 
functionality. On the other hand, having these products so fully 
integrated into the operating system and each other while exposed 
and enjoying the proliferation obtained from Microsoft's illegal use 
of its monopoly operating system, facilitates more and more clever 
exploits by hackers. The most common viruses affecting consumers 
have used the victims own Microsoft applications. It is not so easy 
to wreak havoc in other operating system environments where there 
are no externally programmable, ubiquitous applications which 
applications are fully integrated into the operating system via 
hidden APIs or interfaces. Strangely enough, in the Linux community, 
where essentially nothing is hidden, applications of this power 
could exist and remain secure because the open source community 
polices its environment jointly and severally. Interesting. . . 
someone can break Microsoft products but only Microsoft can fix 
them. Who pays? Thus we have another nasty by-product of the tie-in 
problem. It would be eliminated or greatly reduced with a return to 
application development competition based on an operating system 
exposed on a non-discriminatory basis.
    It would thus be disastrous for ISVs and consumers alike if 
Microsoft had authority to regulate security issues for operating 
system and applications alike. That power is also effectively 
granted by the Final Judgement where security APIs and documentation 
are to regulated directly or indirectly by Microsoft, the antithesis 
of security in consumer and commercial computing.
    That the Final Judgement creates a new class called Microsoft 
Operating System Product, is reprehensible, clearly evading the 
issues addressed by the complaint. That ISVs who know how to use 
computing facilities as well as and better than Microsoft should be 
relegated to the use of middleware for protection from abuse and for 
development is not contemplated by the Complaint or Court findings; 
is unjustly discriminatory, and not in the public interest; denying 
the public the expected benefits of many new applications which may 
or may not use, or be middleware; yet must have the access to the 
same APIs and documentation as any other entity in the computing 
arena. Indeed, many of the best among us study hardware 
documentation for software development, and vice versa. Shall the 
United States Justice Department and Microsoft alter this historic 
landscape of a market in the interest of anyone other than 
Microsoft?
    The Competitive Impact Statement seeks to limit the competition 
that competes against Microsoft and others in selected markets, by

[[Page 30303]]

requiring that ISVs must be of a certain size in the market and have 
had that position over a particular period of time in order to 
obtain API disclosure relief under Section III.D of the Final 
Judgement; further enabling Microsoft to evade Complaint allegations 
and even Sherman Act violations it has been found guilty of. This is 
the case because again, some small mind has not yet learned that 
computing facilities are continually reused by bright agile minds. 
Interfaces used for middleware in one mind are perfect and necessary 
for another application in the mind of another party. This 
reuseability is the inherent nature of computer software and even 
the smallest computer hardware components. The various underlying 
markets must not be constrained by this taking on behalf of 
Microsoft. The limited vision of Bill Gates' nightmares and 
appetites are not the proper perspective to use to correct the 
abuses of Microsoft's monopoly operating system.
    The Competitive Impact Statements states in defining a Non-
Microsoft Middleware Product, that such a product must have 
``at least one million copies distributed in the U.S. within 
the previous year'' (my emphasis) .It further states that this 
reqirement ``is intended to avoid Microsoft's affirmative 
obligations--including the API disclosure required by Section 
III.D . . . being triggered by minor or even nonexistent products 
that have not established a competitive potential in the market and 
that might even be unknown to Microsoft development 
personnel.'' (my emphasis) This is preposterous! This 
constitutes unjust and unlawful restraint of trade and unjust 
discrimination. The Final Judgement does not restrict ISVs to a size 
or type insofar as their right to obtain the benefit of relief under 
Section III.D is concerned. If such were the case, the U.S. and 
Microsoft have decided who has the right to compete where in the 
computing market which as stated above, consists of many integrated 
and simultaneously distinct and competing markets. This carving of 
the competing development community, to the benefit of Microsoft, is 
ironically, the exact opposite of what should be carved. Neither the 
U.S. nor Microsoft has the right to determine what merely new, 
useful, and innovative products may be created using any 
functionality of a legitimate operating system. Is this why the 
evasion technique deployed is to call an operating system an 
operating system product instead of an operating system?
    How dare this decree suggest that Microsoft development 
personnel should be aware of what all or any others are doing in 
development. Microsoft development personnel can not provide 
consumers a finished product after any number of beta tests, nor can 
they secure the products they make. The Revised Proposed Final 
Judgement and related Competitive Impact Statement are a stench in 
the nostrils of intelligent, informed consumers. Unless a settlement 
can resolve the issues raised herin, Microsoft should be broken into 
a least two separate pieces: operating systems and applications.
    Respectively Submitted,
    Leon H. Carrington,
    STB Practitioner
    (301) 862-1604



MTC-00033854

December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing in regards to the recent Microsoft antitrust 
settlement, and the attempts to hold long hearings of within the 
Judiciary Committee. Due to legislative time constraints and the 
current recession, absolutely no more action should be taken at the 
federal level. I personally don't think that this case should have 
ever reared its ugly head in the first place. This lawsuit has been 
perpetuated for the last three years; it is a waste of the 
government's time and money that could be used on more critical 
priorities in these disheartening times.
    Microsoft's products were--and are--both practical and 
satisfying to their customers. The only complaints toward Microsoft 
were coming from their competitors. Now, as much as I do not believe 
that this case should NOT have happened, the settlement continues 
represents a mutually fair and reasonable outcome. In fact, a court-
appointed mediator and small armies of lawyers negotiated the 
agreement, yet again emphasizing the point about wasted government 
time and money.
    I implore you not to pursue any more litigation, or, for that 
matter, any further action at all. Please lay this case to rest. 
Thank you. Sincerely,
    Barbara Champaigne
    1072 Oak Street
    Nenah, WI 54956
    P.S. I think this country is getting ``sue'' crazy!



MTC-00033855

38943 Swordfish Common
Fremont, CA 94536
October 15, 2001
U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft
DOJ Antitrust Chief Charles A. James
The Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20240
    Dear Messrs. Ashcroft and James:
    Please see attached San Francisco Chronicle article written by 
Mr. Paul Bechner pertaining to the Microsoft s anti-trust case 
initiated by the previous Department of Justice under Clinton 
Administration. As one of millions of consumers in the world, I feel 
same way as Mr. Paul Bechner does about the Microsoft anti-trust 
case.
    Mr. Bechner's article indicates how unfair and unjust the 
previous Department of Justice was, along with 19 states' Attorney 
Generals. A few rival companies are lobbying state attorneys and 
legislators to encourage more legal and regulatory action against 
Microsoft. Microsoft is not a tobacco company. It does not harm the 
consumers. On the contrary, the company has consistently delivered 
new and innovative products at better prices to consumers and 
businesses.
    Thank you for taking the time to read Mr. Paul Bechner's 
article.
    Sincerely,
    Francis Cheng



MTC-00033856

Thomas Holmes, 3005 Montgomery Road, Shaker Heights, OH 444122 USA
tel. +1 216 283 2010, fax +1 216 283 2009, email 
[email protected]
December 6, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I was extremely pleased to hear that the Department of Justice 
has decided to settle its antitrust dispute against the Microsoft 
Corporation, which is why I have take then opportunity to writ to 
you during this comment period to express my opinion on this issue. 
Millions of dollars and countless hours have been wasted on both 
sides of this dispute. Microsoft has completely changed for the 
better the way most companies manage their business on a day to day 
basis. Why did our Government set out to kill the goose that lays 
the golden eggs? This settlement will be good for the American 
economy.
    I am pleased that we may be able to finally put this lawsuit 
behind us. I am pleased that you have had the foresight to settle 
this case on the federal level. We do not need congressional action 
on this matter. Hopefully the states that are still considering 
litigation will see the wisdom in settling.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Holmes



MTC-00033857

Joyce R. Kerze
4899 Golf Village Drive
Powell, Ohio 43065
December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As an avid user of Microsoft products, I would like to express 
my opinion that legal action against Microsoft should stop. I 
believe that the current settlement still suffices; it allows 
computer manufacturers new rights to configure systems with access 
to Windows features. I have been following the economic recession, 
and feel that further action against Microsoft will only foster the 
current negative state of the economy. I urge you to fully close the 
case against Microsoft
    Sincerely,
    Joyce R. Kerze



MTC-00033858

David Lukens, M.D.
3320 3320 Prarie Hills Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502
December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    The agreement that was reached between Microsoft and the Justice 
Department in antitrust dispute was carefully negotiated to address 
concerns on both sides of the issue.

[[Page 30304]]

Microsoft will have to make a number of concessions and changes in 
the way that it licenses and markets its products, but will be 
allowed to continue to use the integrated technology that has 
allowed it lead the industry.
    During this period of public comment, I wanted to register my 
view that it would be in everyone's best interest for the Department 
of Justice to approve the settlement. America's computer industry is 
the world's best, and was a major player in the 90's economic boom. 
Microsoft gets a lot of credit for this. It is bad policy to keep it 
hobbled with litigation.
    Thank you for accepting my comments on this issue.
    Sincerely,
    David Lukens



MTC-00033859

December 5, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    As a concerned citizen of this great country, I write you to 
express my interest in the recent Microsoft settlement. As I have 
been a supporter of the settlement in the past, I am urging you to 
support the decision to take no further action in this matter. As I 
see the news daily, I am concerned about the current recession and 
am hoping for a swift recovery. As technological advancement is 
delayed, so is our economic growth. This recession has also had a 
devastating effect on state budgets, and it does not make sense to 
spend resources on delaying a settlement that has already been 
achieved. This settlement is fair and beneficial to all parties. It 
can only help our economy flourish and our country to prosper.
    Sincerely,
    Fahed Raad
    14250 Applewood Court
    Elm Grove, WI 53122



MTC-00033860

    Thomas A. Tisch
    15040 Encina Ct., Saratoga, CA 95070 Email: 
[email protected]
    November 4, 2001
    Attorney General John Ashcroft
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am appalled that you would let your department settle with 
Microsoft on the proposed basis. I have spent 20 years in the 
venture capital and computer industry during which time I have 
personally observed Microsoft steal secrets, be duplicitous in its 
dealings, and through its dominance of the operating system force 
acceptance of other Microsoft products. At least two companies of 
which I have been an investor and a director have directly been 
harmed by Microsoft monopoly practices. One (Stac) won a $100 
Million judgment against Microsoft for stealing patented 
information. The judgment was no more than a slap on the wrist of 
the economic juggernaut. The other saw its premier product line 
integrated into Microsoft products and effectively given away until 
the company was reduced to ashes. As a personal user, I have wasted 
hours, even days, of my time dealing with dysfunctional Microsoft 
products, products that in a more competitive environment would have 
been driven from the marketplace or forced to upgrade in quality.
    What other company can delay, or miss a promised introduction 
date for a new product by 6 or more months and not suffer 
competitive penalties? None other but Microsoft. Not General Motors, 
not General Electric, not United Airlines, not IBM, not ATT. The 
time is here when the Federal Government, for which you have some 
responsibility, can be severely crippled by Microsoft business 
decisions and for which the Federal Government--along with the 
rest of us--can find no relief in competitive products or 
services.
    The proposed remedies for the Microsoft antitrust case are a 
sham and sellout on behalf of the American people and hundreds of 
thousands of workers in the computer industry. It is not something 
to be pushed under the Sept. 11th rug. In fact core ethical values 
are at stake in this matter, as they are in the issues of Sept. 
11th. Perhaps it's too late for you exercise some leadership in this 
matter (as others before you have done). Perhaps not. It's up to 
you.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas A. Tisch



MTC-00033861

2417 Hillview Drive
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
December 7, 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    I am writing you today, to express my support for the settlement 
reached between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. I feel this 
settlement is fair, and that no further legal actions should be 
taken against Microsoft by the Federal Government. It is in the best 
interest of our economy to let this issue rest and for the Federal 
Government to move onto other endeavors. Under the agreement, 
Microsoft pledged not only to devote resources to comply with the 
terms of the proposed agreement, but to become a more responsible 
industry leader. Through a court appointed mediator several issues 
were resolved after intense negotiations. Microsoft agreed to 
communicate even more with other companies; share information about 
their software design and competitors will retain the right to sue 
Microsoft if they believe Microsoft is not complying with the 
agreement.
    Now is the time to allow the settlement to take effect and allow 
Microsoft to return its focus on innovation, not litigation.
    Sincerely,
    Theresa Underwood



MTC-00033862

PO Box 135
Monterey, MA 01245
6 December 2001
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    This two-month period the people of the United States now have 
to express our concern about further litigation against Microsoft is 
a wonderful use of free speech. I would like to take this 
opportunity to express my personal opinion about the government's 
role in Microsoft's freedom to innovate. The United States 
Department of Justice and Microsoft reached an agreement at the 
beginning of this past November; that is where the litigation should 
end. The settlement was just and right: it allowed Microsoft to 
continue doing business, while allowing competitors to sue Microsoft 
if they do not think the company is complying with the agreement.
    No more litigation should be enacted at the federal level. With 
a reasonable settlement already in place, further government action 
would only waste more time and money. In this time of economic 
recession, these resources could be used in a much more productive 
manner. In these trying times, we need to support our homeland 
companies and allow them to continue providing high-quality products 
to the marketplace both here and abroad. Lastly, Microsoft is one of 
our top IT businesses and represents the determination and hard work 
we as Americans value.
    In a battle that the government has alrady been fought and won, 
I believe it would be in our best interest not to continue suing 
Microsoft. Let us get our economy back on track and start supporting 
products and companies that are made in the USA. Thank you for you 
time.
    Sincerely,
    J.T. Buchar



MTC-00033863

John Millet
1818 27th St, Sacramento, CA 958 14
January 2,2002
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Ms. Hesse:
    The economy is in recession. Our country is at war with 
terrorism. Yet, we are still dealing with this anti-trust case 
against Microsoft. Let's get our priorities in order.
    I am glad to see that the government has found a way to settle 
this case and allow Microsoft to get back to work doing what it does 
best. Microsoft's influence on our economy is great and putting this 
case behind it will allow them to be the national leader they are 
and stimulate this economy with new and innovative products at 
affordable prices for consumers.
    Settlement of this case is best for our country, the world 
economy, the tech industry and individual consumers. I hope that 
this case is wrapped up soon.
    Thanks.
    John Millet

[[Page 30305]]



MTC-00033864

elanie Teague
1102 22nd St. Unit 606
Hickory. NC 28601
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Deportment of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    The proposed settlement in the U.S, v. Microsoft case is clearly 
a compromise because it does not completely satisfy Microsoft or its 
competitors, I support the settlement because it attempts to reach a 
middle ground for both sides and will ultimately benefit consumers, 
the technology industry and the economy. End users will be 
guaranteed flexibility because new microsoft operating systems will 
have a mechanism that alIows them to remove or re-enable middleware 
products such as the internet browser. email utilities and messaging 
toots. Computer manufacturers will have flexibililty because 
Microsoft will not be allowed to penalize them for distributing 
software that competes with Microsoft.
    The settlement also allows a technical Committee to respond 
quickly to complaints about Microsoft compliance. Microsoft 
competitors hove other benefits as a result of this settlement. It 
Is lime to reach an agreement and allow the technology Industry to 
get back to developing new products and encouraging innovation that 
will stimuiate the economy.



MTC-00033865

ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
P.O. Drawer 38 o OldTown,FL32660
(352)542-7942--Fax# (352)542-3417
January 12,2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
US Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
    Dear Attorney General Ashcroft:
    It has come to my attention that both the Justice Department, 
and Microsoft have reached a settlement in the three-year antitrust 
case. I am happy to hear about the settlement, and I support it 
100%.
    This settlement will allow computer makers the means to remove 
access to various features of Windows, such as Microsoft's Internet 
Explorer web browser, windows Media Player, and Windows Messenger. 
Also, Microsoft has agreed not to retaliate against computer makers 
who ship software that competes with anything in its Windows 
operating system.
    In fact, Microsoft has even agreed not to retaliate against 
software developers who develop or promote software that competes 
with Windows, I would like to see this case settled as quickly as 
possible, since further delay would end up hurting the American 
economy. Do not prosecute Microsoft any further!
    Thank you.
    Anderson, Jr



MTC-00033866

From: Gary Pearce
9197878031
Dec. 26, 2001 01:00PM P1
Renata Hesse
Trial Attorney
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice
601 D Street NW, Suite 1200
Washington. DC 20530
    Dear Attorney Hesse:
    I encourage approval of the proposed settlement in the U.S. v. 
Microsoft so that technology companies can focus on innovation and 
competition rather than litigation As a consumer and an educator,I 
find that the Microsoft products are easy to use and allow 
integration of several software programs for consumers who do not 
have a lot of experience with computer programs. This settlement 
will allow continued ease for the consumer while at the same time 
providing some safegrounds that Microsoft's competitors wanted to 
guarantee them and consumers greater flexibility in the use of other 
operating Systems.
    The settlement will allow access to technical specifications, 
provide a mechanism for removing products such as the Internet 
browser, and sets up a Technical Committee to respond to complaints 
about Microsoft's compliance with the settlement provisions. The 
settlement offers benefits to the technology industry and consumers 
and provides a reasonable compromise.
    Sincerely,
    Shannon Aycock



MTC-00033867

FROM: AUDE ACCTG SVCS I NC
ROBERT M & LE T. RUDE
21301 8th Place W
Lynnwood, WA 98036
January 25, 2002
Attorney General John Ashcroft
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20330-0001
    Dear Mr. Ashcroft:
    We have taken this opportunity to write in and express our 
opinion of the antitrust suit against the Microsoft Corporation. We 
feel that this suit has been bogged down in the judicial system for 
long enough and it is time for the government to allow Microsoft to 
get back to work. It needs to continue setting the standard in the 
worldwide technology industry.
    It is our opinion that this suit has pulled the American economy 
down, especially in the vital IT sector. The bottom line is, 
Microsoft is one of this nation's largest employers, and the 
perpetuation of this case during these times of economic uncertainty 
is imprudent. Microsoft is and always has been a great company. They 
have given millions of dollars to charity and have changed the way 
we view computers forever. Microsoft made technology accessible to 
Americans in a form that was usable. Without this company, there 
would have been no ``P.C. revolution.'' We believe that 
the terms of this settlement will ensure that there are no further 
violations of antitrust committed by the company, especially with 
the establishment of a technical committee which will monitor 
Microsoft and prevent them From any future violations.
    We arc please that an end to this litigation is in sight. Please 
continue to support the settlement and the future of free enterprise 
in this nation.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Rude Le Rude

Dorothy Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations.

[FR Doc. 02-5355 Filed 5-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-P


